MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

131 of the Act, more particularly when specific request with regard thereto has been made by the assessee. 3. That the learned CIT(A)-I, Agra has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the rejection of the books of accounts by invoking the provisions laid down under section 145(3) of the Act and estimation

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 131 of the Act for personal appearance and even, the appellant had not produced those persons for examination in spite of specifically asked by the AO. It has also been noticed that the disallowance

VERMA SERVICE STATION,FIROZABAD vs. ACIT, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

disallowed interest of Rs.2,85,984/- and Rs.1,83,248/- for which, it was stated that the authorized representative of the assessee conceded. I.T.A No. 212/Agra/2018 3 3. In the first round of appeal, ITAT, Agra Bench, Agra Vide ITA No. 189/Agra/2011 dated 12.08.2015 has restored the matter back to AO holding that since the additions are based

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

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is partly

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance on fixed assets. The perusal of the impugned assessment order would reveal that the ld. Assessing Officer while considering the net profit rate of the assessee has given a comparative analysis of the turnover and profits of the appellant for the three assessment years as under: A.Y. Sales (Rs.) GP (Rs) G.P. Rate NP(Rs.) N.P. Rate

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S PREM MOTORS PVT LTD., GWALIOR

The appeals of the department are dismissed

section (1) as if such house or houses had been let. 4.6.1 A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that where a property is fully let out, its Annual Value is to be taken at ITA 322 & 327/Agra/2015 26 higher of the actual rent received / receivable from the said property or the sum for which the said

MAHIM PATRAN P. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT -2, AGRA

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

disallowed said claim by observing that rule 37BA was inserted with effect from 1-4-2009 only and same would not apply in relevant assessment year - Whether since rule was inserted to remove hardship faced by assessees and to give true meaning to provision of section 199. credit of TDS was to be allowed - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour

SURESH CHAND GUPTA,JHANSI vs. DCIT-6, JHANSI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

131 DTR 344, have also held so relying on the decision of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (supra).” 6. Further the ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case, written submissions filed by the ld. AR confirmed the addition made on account of income from other sources by observing vide para 5.2 of the impugned order

HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

131 of the Act and after considering the submissions of assessee, he accepted that the transactions are genuine and accordingly did not propose any addition or disallowances. However, Ld PCIT was of the opinion that the AO had not verified the above issues by overlooking the immediate cash withdrawals by Mr. Irfan or transfers to other accounts, may be dummy

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

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

131 of the Act and after considering the submissions of assessee, he accepted that the transactions are genuine and accordingly did not propose any addition or disallowances. However, Ld PCIT was of the opinion that the AO had not verified the above issues by overlooking the immediate cash withdrawals by Mr. Irfan or transfers to other accounts, may be dummy

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

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

131 of the Act and after considering the submissions of assessee, he accepted that the transactions are genuine and accordingly did not propose any addition or disallowances. However, Ld PCIT was of the opinion that the AO had not verified the above issues by overlooking the immediate cash withdrawals by Mr. Irfan or transfers to other accounts, may be dummy

AMBRISH SARIN,AGRA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

disallowed I.T.A No. 372/Agra/2018 8 that particular expense. But, that by itself could not be a ground for rejection of accounts as a whole u/s 145(3) of the Act.” 10. The ld. DR. supported the impugned order. 11. We have heard both the sides, perused the material on records and the judgments relied upon. We agree with the argument