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)

disallowance of a claim of deduction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd reported in 322 ITR 158 (SC). Though this decision was rendered in the context of penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act, the same analogy could be drawn for the penalty

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)

disallowance of a claim of deduction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd reported in 322 ITR 158 (SC). Though this decision was rendered in the context of penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act, the same analogy could be drawn for the penalty

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)

disallowance of a claim of deduction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd reported in 322 ITR 158 (SC). Though this decision was rendered in the context of penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act, the same analogy could be drawn for the penalty

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

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

C-4/10, 2nd Floor, Safdarjung\nDevelopment Area, South\nWest Delhi\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nPAN: AACFA2599N\nAssessee by : None\nRevenue by:\nShri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR\nDate of Hearing\n03/02/2025\nDate of pronouncement\n03/02/2025\nORDER\nPER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.:\n1. The appeal in ITA Nos. 237 & 274/AGR/2024 for AYs 2015-16 and 2018-19, arises

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)

C- 4/10, 2nd Floor, Safdarjung Agra, Development Area, South West Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AACFA2599N Assessee by : None Revenue by: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR Date of Hearing 03/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 03/02/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA Nos. 237 & 274/AGR/2024 for AYs 2015-16 and 2018- 19, arises

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2019-20 is\nallowed and appeals filed by the Revenue in AYs 2021-22, 2022-23 and\n2023-24 are dismissed

C\" of Paper Book.\nD. Further, during the course of reassessment proceedings, the AO made an\nenquiry from the Md. Irfan vide summons issued dated 26.03.2023\nforming part of Supplementary paper Book at page 1,and the statement\nof Md. Irfan recorded on oath, wherein he had admitted that, he is\nengaged in trading of Alive animals and also confirmed

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

c) Appellate Order passed by ITAT, Bangalore in the case of Brinda Ramakrishna v. ITO (Bang. ITAT) in ITA no. 454/Bang/2021 d) Appellate order passed by ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Mr. John Arunkumar Diaz v. DCIT in ITA no. 3647/Mum/2023 e)Appellate Order passed by ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Sanjeev Aggarwal v. DCIT

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

c) the entire proceedings for verification of cash transactions relating to demonetization period were conducted by the AO in complete disregard to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) mandated by the CBDT from time to time in it circulars, thereby rendering the entire proceedings as void ab inito resulting into deletion of impugned demand of Rs. 17,66,523. 3. That

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

disallowance of depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against the above said assessment order dated 31.03.2016, learned CIT(A) vide order dated 25.06.2025 affirmed the rejection of accounts and sustained the addition made by AO on account of low profit rate. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal in ITA No.342/Agr/2025 before the ITAT, which has been partly allowed

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

disallowance of depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against the above said assessment order dated 31.03.2016, learned CIT(A) vide order dated 25.06.2025 affirmed the rejection of accounts and sustained the addition made by AO on account of low profit rate. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal in ITA No.342/Agr/2025 before the ITAT, which has been partly allowed

HYDRISE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

disallow the additions proposed by the Assessing Officer. 21. I note the above observations of learned Accountant Member and is of the view that assessment proceedings or any proceedings under the Act before the Assessing Officer which affect the levy of tax on the subject are judicial in nature. It is well-settled that the Assessing Officer upon whom jurisdiction

HYDRISE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

disallow the additions proposed by the Assessing Officer. 21. I note the above observations of learned Accountant Member and is of the view that assessment proceedings or any proceedings under the Act before the Assessing Officer which affect the levy of tax on the subject are judicial in nature. It is well-settled that the Assessing Officer upon whom jurisdiction

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

c. Disallowances of deprecation- 67,84,622/- d. Disallowance of other expenses:- 12,76,916/- 5. The ld CIT(A) granted partial relief to the assessee in the first round. The assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Tribunal in the first round restored the matter back to the file of the ld CIT(A). In the second round

GRAM VIKAS KALYAN SANSTHAN,MATHURA vs. I.T.O. (TDS), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhgram Vikas Kalyan Sansthan, Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds), Nagla Aklha, Sonkh – Goverdhan Road, Agra. Mathura – 281 123 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aaatg3272E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shalenndra Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025

C and D of this order, which is arbitrary, uncalled for unjustified and based on surmises and conjunctures. 3 2. The order passed by the Income tax Officer is erroneous and contrary to law and facts, against the weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 3. The assessee craves leave to add, alter or vary the grounds of appeal

SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

disallowing expenditure u/s. 11 & 12 ofthe Act is upheld particularly because of the fact that as per section 119(2)(b) of theAct the CIT(A) is not authorized to admit application or claim of exemption which saysthat “ the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoidinggenuine hardship in any case or class

SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

disallowing expenditure u/s. 11 & 12 ofthe Act is upheld particularly because of the fact that as per section 119(2)(b) of theAct the CIT(A) is not authorized to admit application or claim of exemption which saysthat “ the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoidinggenuine hardship in any case or class

SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

disallowing expenditure u/s. 11 & 12 ofthe Act is upheld particularly because of the fact that as per section 119(2)(b) of theAct the CIT(A) is not authorized to admit application or claim of exemption which saysthat “ the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoidinggenuine hardship in any case or class

SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

disallowing expenditure u/s. 11 & 12 ofthe Act is upheld particularly because of the fact that as per section 119(2)(b) of theAct the CIT(A) is not authorized to admit application or claim of exemption which saysthat “ the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoidinggenuine hardship in any case or class