DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA vs. ALNOOR EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

13", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee, engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of frozen meat, had purchases totaling Rs. 242 crores for Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer (AO) questioned the veracity of purchases made from two parties, Mohammed Imran and Haji Mohammed Yameen, totaling Rs. 20,02,27,640, due to non-compliance with Section

RAM KUMAR SHIVHARE,SHIVPURI vs. DCIT ACIT 3(1) GWALIOR, GWALOR

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vs. Dcit/Acit-3(1), Sh. Ram Kumar Shivhare, Wonder Bike Auto Sales Gwaliar Shivpuri, Ab Road, Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh Pan :Adkps8008H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Adv. Department By Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2025 Order

section 68 addition of Rs.7,13,000/- representing sundry creditors amounting to Rs.16,07,527/-, including a sum of Rs.7,13,000/- in case of Ku. Vaishali disallowed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA vs. ALNOOR EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 4 and 5 raised by the revenue are dismissed. 13

JAGDISH CHANDRA CHATURVEDI,KASGANJ vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 4(3)(3), KASGANJ , KASGANJ

Appeal is allowed

13,55,054/-, which was restricted to Rs. 3 lakhs by the lower authorities under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee argued that disallowing

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),AGRA, AGRA vs. EMCO EXPORTS, AGRA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

disallow such claim for deduction. Similarly, vide Finance Act, 2008, w.e.f. 1.4.2008 sub- Section (6) has been inserted in Section 195 which requires the payer to furnish information relating to payment of any sum in such form and manner as may be prescribed by the Board. This provision is brought into force only from 1.4.2008. It will not apply

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

13-10-2017 declaring total income of Rs 14,98,32,770/-. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of plastic pipes and fittings and containers of plastics at its manufacturing units situated in integrated industrial state. The assessee ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023 Vectus Industries Ltd company has claimed deduction under section 80IC

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

13-10-2017 declaring total income of Rs 14,98,32,770/-. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of plastic pipes and fittings and containers of plastics at its manufacturing units situated in integrated industrial state. The assessee ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023 Vectus Industries Ltd company has claimed deduction under section 80IC

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1) , GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

13-10-2017 declaring total income of Rs 14,98,32,770/-. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of plastic pipes and fittings and containers of plastics at its manufacturing units situated in integrated industrial state. The assessee ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023 Vectus Industries Ltd company has claimed deduction under section 80IC

SH SANJAY BANSAL ,MORENA vs. A.C.I.T (CENTRAL), GWALIOR

In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed

Bench: learned CIT(Appeals) who has very exhaustively passed the impugned order in 60 pages and considered all the submissions of the assessee in the tabulated form and otherwise, which need not to be repeated again for the sake of brevity. However, learned CIT(Appeals) partly allowed assessee's appeal confirming the addition only to the extent of Rs.71,44,045/- as against addition of Rs.91,06,669/-. 4. Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds : "1.Because in any view, th

disallowed as per the provisions of section 40A(3) rw.r. 6DD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The appellant Submitted that following purchases have been made in cash from the Cultivators of agricultural products and therefore, these payments are allowable as per the provisions of section 40A(3A) r.w.r. 6DD(e) 7| Page produce was purchased grower producer is placed

ANKITA PALIWAL,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

disallowance FTC in case of delay filing of form 67 is not mandatory but a directory requirement and DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act.” 9. In the light of foregoing discussions, we are of the opinion that filing of Form 67 is a directory not mandatory and violation of procedural

MONIKA RATHORE,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, MORENA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2023-24

13 filed with the ITAT. 5.2 Learned Sr. DR submitted that the return of income was filed belatedly by the assessee on 31.08.2023 u/s 139(4), while the due date of filing the return of income for impugned assessment year was 31.07.2023. The return of income was processed by CPC on 30.04.2024 u/s 143(1). It was submitted that

GIRDHARI LAL KEDAR NATH SINGHAL,AGRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahmangirdhari Lal Kedar Nath Singhal, Vs. Ito 1 (1)(1), Ff – 1, Bhagwati Complex, Agra. M.G. Road, Opp. Shah Cinema, Agra – 282 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aacfg5458N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Naveen Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Order : 03.09.2025

section 40A(3) of the Act as the payments exceeding Rs.10,000/- in a day had been made to these persons. Accordingly, the Ground No. 1.1 and 1.2 are dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before ITAT raising various argumentative grounds of appeal, which is not as per the ITAT Rules. However, single grievance of the assessee is disallowance

RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA,ETAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(1),, ETAH

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

13. With regard to application of section 115BBE, since we have already deleted the addition made by Assessing Officer u/s. 68, the relevant ground raised by the assessee becomes infructuous. 14. With regard to ground No. 5, we observe that the Assessing Officer has proceeded to treat all the credits in the bank account as business receipts of the assessee

HARI OM AGARWAL,KOLARAS vs. ITO SHIVPURI, ASHOK NAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowance is called for being , books of accounts maintained by the assessee are duly accepted, provisions of Section 145(3) are not invoked. The addition made by the AO , sustained by the National Faceless Appeal Centre is liable to be deleted.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the impugned assessment year

MANISH KUMAR CHATURVEDI,JHANSI vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(2), JHANSI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Manish Kumar Chaturvedi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1882, Shivaji Nagar, Jhansic Ward-2(3)(2), 284001 Jhansi 284 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Akkpc5294Q Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/02/2025

13,00,000 during the AY 2017-18 and why provisions of 44AD of the Act be not applicable on such receipts as well. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order passed by the AO without considering the fact that the savings bank interest earned by the appellant

SATISH PRAKASH AGARWAL,AGRA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17

disallowance of Rs. 34,38,533/ made by the Ld. Assessing Officer even when the entire amount of interest expense on unsecured loans was allowable as deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 since the unsecured loans were utilized for making investment in the partnership firm from where income in the form of interest

PEHAL,CHHATARPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), GWALIOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR (Accountant Member)

section 12A(2) of the Act, in respect of disallowing exemption u/s. 11 of Rs.583240/-. 3 5. That, the appellant craves leave to add, amend, withdraw any ground (s) of appeal before and/or at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the impugned assessment year on 12.10.2010, declaring

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. CHITAVALSAH JUTE MILLS LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Acit, Vs. Chitavalasah Jute Mills Ltd, Range-1, 73-74, 201, Sheetala House, Faridabad Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccc6834D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

disallowed and the addition made is sustained. The remaining component of finance charges being interest on fixed deposit to public is not covered under section 43B. Hence, the assessee gets a relief of Rs 13

RANJANA CHATURVEDI,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalito-1(3)(1), Ranjna Chaturvedi Ayakar Bhawan, 9A, T Point, Behind Back Vs. Radhika Vihar, Gate Skjs, Govind Nagar, Phase-Ii, Mathura-281001 (U.P.) Mathura-281004 (U.P.) Pan-Afopc4950N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M.M. Agarwal, Ca Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

section 69A of the Act.” 4. Ground of appeal No.2 is with respect to the disallowance of Rs.1,12,596/- made out of interest expenses claimed by the assessee. 5. The AO observed that the assessee has withdrawn Rs.10,00,000/- for construction of house which was for personal purpose and had paid interest on bank borrowing of Rs.4