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

ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA vs. JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

disallowance of the exemption claimed under section 11 and 13 of the Act as the activities of the assessee was in the nature of trade, commerce or business in nature. In response to that the assessee filed the reply of 7th August 2013 and in the reply it was mentioned as under. “ Before replying to specific queries, the assessee

JHASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. DY. C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, AGRA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

disallowance of the exemption claimed under section 11 and 13 of the Act as the activities of the assessee was in the nature of trade, commerce or business in nature. In response to that the assessee filed the reply of 7th August 2013 and in the reply it was mentioned as under. “ Before replying to specific queries, the assessee

JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

disallowance of the exemption claimed under section 11 and 13 of the Act as the activities of the assessee was in the nature of trade, commerce or business in nature. In response to that the assessee filed the reply of 7th August 2013 and in the reply it was mentioned as under. “ Before replying to specific queries, the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, MORENA vs. SHRI AGRASEN LOGISTICS, JOTAI ROAD, PORSA,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

133(6) of the Act. However the AO choose a simple way to rely on the surmises & suspicion and treated the entire unsecured loan as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. 5.5 It is to be noted that the assessee firm accepted to have received unsecured loan, provided name, PAN, confirmation and bank account statement of the creditors

SUMIT KUMAR,AGRA vs. ITO 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sumit Kumar, Vs. Ito, Village Rampura, Ward-1(1)(2), Gwalior Road, Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Buqpk7461L Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Agarwal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

section 133(6) of the Act. The Assessee had also submitted that those parties were not having taxable Sumit Kumar income and hence had not filed their income tax returns. Despite all these explanations and documentary evidences, the Learned AO proceeded to disallow

MANISH MAHESHWARI,GWALIOR vs. JCIT RANGE-2, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him Though Specific Request Was Made To Admit The Same. Ground No. 2 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed Theaddition Of Rs. 67,530/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 40A(3) Of The Income Tax Act. (Ii) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Legally Erred In Rejecting The Appellant'Sspecificsubmissionand The Unavoidable Circumstances Under Which The Payment Wasmade. Ground No. 3 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed An Addition Of Rs. 1,11,038/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Disallowing The Claim Of Interest Paid Holding The Same To Be Not Allowable U/S 57(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act.”

disallowing the claim of interest paid holding the same to be not allowable u/s 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act.” 2. Apropos Ground No.1, the assessee has objected the addition of Rs.2.00 lakhs made u/s 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loan. 3. The Assessing Officer has observed in Para 3.5 of the assessment orderas under

SH. YUGAL KISHOR AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), ETAH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance of speculation loss of Rs.56,407/- under the head income from business or profession claimed as deduction from interest and remuneration from Partnership Firm as claimed by the assessee in the return of income filed with the Revenue, as the assessee could not furnish any evidences in respect of this loss. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with

ACIT CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. SHARMA & ASSOCIATES FIRETECH PVT LTD, GWALIOR

In the result, we do not find any error as the assessee has failed to establish the

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2010-11

disallowance made by the assessing officer for than amount of Rs.131,91,325/-. 17. Further from the perusal of the order of the assessing officer it is amply clear that the notices issued under section 133

SMT. BINA WADHWA,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2010-11

133(6), evident from the Assessing Order, and no approval has been taken for issue of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, hence reopening of case without valid approval of Joint Commissioner is bad in law. 2- Because as per sub section (2) of section 151 no notice shall be issued under section 148 by Assessing officer

VIMAL KUMAR,MAINPURI vs. INCOEM TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(4), MAINPURI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshvimal Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ramnagar, Halpur, Ward-4(2)(2), Agra, Up Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Assessee By : Shri Harsh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17/03/2026

section 133(6) of the Act by the Learned AO. From the replies furnished by the farmers, the Learned AO tabulated as under:- Sl No. Name of Farmers in the Gross value of Gross payments Difference in amounts list provided by the purchased and made through actually paid to the assessee as well as same amount paid to the bearers

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

The appeals of the department are dismissed

133 ITD 1 and decision of various courts as under, have been cited by the appellant - CIT VsAnkitechPvt Ltd and others 340 ITR 14 (Del) CIT Vs AR Magnetics (P) Ltd (2014) 220 Taxman 209 (Del. HC) CIT Vs Daisy Packers (P) Ltd. (2014) 220 Taxman 331 (Guj. HC) CIT VsSuram Holdings (P) Ltd. (2014) 220 Taxman

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

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

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 and remuneration was earned and offered for tax in the income-tax return. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

RAMJI DAS GUPTA,GWALIOR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jaina.Y.: 2010-11 Shri Ramji Das Gupta, Vs. Acit, Circle-2, 247, Madhav Nagar, Gwalior. Gwalior Pan Acopg5414C (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed. Hence the addition of Rs. 11,69,841/- may kindly be deleted or in the alternative deduction of interest payment to the bank was clearly allowable under law as section 57(lll) of the Income tax Act and may allowed." 2. The facts are that addition of Rs.11,69,841/- was made by the AO out of interest paid

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

section 201/201(1A) of the Act. In case, the payee declares the abovesaid income in their return of income and pays the due tax, the liability of the assessee is discharged and before making the disallowance, the Assessing Officer has to determine whether the assessee is in default or not u/s 201/201(1A). In 7 case, it is found that

ANUPAM MITTAL,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

disallowance of payment of interest) without properly appreciating the facts brought on record by the Appellant during the course of assessment and appellate proceedings. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) (NFAC) has grossly misconceived the provisions of section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 through which the onus automatically shifts upon the Assessing Officer to make

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)

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 accounts maintained by him. The nature of cash withdrawals indicates modus operandi for providing accommodation entries, the immediate cash withdrawal and transfer of funds to other