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)

disallow a sum of Rs. 5,04,124 as being excessive interest paid in terms of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The Assessee before the ld CITA submitted that the market rate of interest on unsecured loans was in the range of 12 to 14

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)

14. Further, in the case of Serajuddin & Co. (supra), Hon‟ble Orissa High Court has also considered the issue of approval, according to the Revenue, it is itself not justiciable. Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered where approval granted is mechanical and it would vitiate the assessment order itself. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sahara India (Firm

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)

14. Further, in the case of Serajuddin & Co. (supra), Hon‟ble Orissa High Court has also considered the issue of approval, according to the Revenue, it is itself not justiciable. Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered where approval granted is mechanical and it would vitiate the assessment order itself. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sahara India (Firm

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

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

section 145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without identifying OR pointing out any specific defect OR inconsistency in the books of account maintained by the appellant in the regular course of business. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that transactions undertaken

ALAUDDIN,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16

14) of the Act on the sale of the said immovable property nor provided any details of such capital gains in his return of income filed in ITR-4S. 3. Based on the aforesaid facts, Ld. Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s. 147 by issuing notice dated 31.03.2021 u/s. 148 of the Act after taking prior approval of the ld. PCIT

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)

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 of the Act for 3 different units i.e. 2 units located

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)

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 of the Act for 3 different units i.e. 2 units located

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)

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 of the Act for 3 different units i.e. 2 units located

TOMAR AND BROTHERS,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(5), ETAWAH

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

2 & 3, raised by the assessee are partly allowed in above terms. 7. Ground No. 4 relates to disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act amounting to Rs.9,53,000/- on account of non-deduction of tax at source on various expenses, which are mentioned in the ground reading as under : 4. BECAUSE, disallowance

NARENDRA KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD, U.P.

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2021-22]

Disallowance of Rs. 623/- on account of GST late fees. Facts of the Case 2. The assessee, Mr. Narendra Kumar, is engaged in the proprietary business of scrap trading under the name M/s Ayoniza Enterprises. 3. The assessee filed his Income Tax Return (ITR) for AY 2021-22 on 08.10.2021, declaring total income of Rs. 14,14

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)

2 of section 263 of the Act. He remitted the order back to the AO to pass fresh order after conducting proper enquiries. 9. On careful consideration of material facts on record, we observed that Ld PCIT had completely ignored the other facts on record that in the case of Irfan, in subsequent appeal before CIT(A), the addition

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)

2 of section 263 of the Act. He remitted the order back to the AO to pass fresh order after conducting proper enquiries. 9. On careful consideration of material facts on record, we observed that Ld PCIT had completely ignored the other facts on record that in the case of Irfan, in subsequent appeal before CIT(A), the addition

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)

2 of section 263 of the Act. He remitted the order back to the AO to pass fresh order after conducting proper enquiries. 9. On careful consideration of material facts on record, we observed that Ld PCIT had completely ignored the other facts on record that in the case of Irfan, in subsequent appeal before CIT(A), the addition

MARSHAL SECURITY SERVICES,AGRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

14-07-2016, CBDT has\nagain instructed the taxing authorities in para 2 to 4 as under:-\n“2. In order to ensure that maximum objectivity is maintained in\nconverting a case falling under ‘Limited Scrutiny' into a ‘Complete\nScrutiny' case, the matter has been further examined and in partial\nmodification to Para 3(d) of the earlier order dated

ASHOKA GENERAL INDUSTRIES,MATHURA vs. JURISDICTIONAL A.O., WARD-1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Return. The Impugned Order Is Grossly Arbitrary, Highly Unjust, Unwarranted, Perverse, Wrong, Illegal & Bad In Law.

disallowance of Rs.6,14,929/- has been confirmed by the 'NFAC in summary and prejudice manner, without discussing less distinguishing the Judgments of Jurisdictional High Court referred and relied upon by the ‘Appellant’. 4. BECAUSE, in any view of the matter the issue under appeal stands squarely covered in favour of the 'Appellant' by the recent Order dated 14.06.2021 passed

AL HAMD AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD,ALIGARH vs. DC/ACIT, ALIGARH

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

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

14 4 | P a g e of the Constitution of India, but whether the classification brought about by Section 40 (a) (i) of the Act defeats the object of the DTAA. 56. The argument of the Revenue also overlooks the fact that the condition under which deductibility is disallowed in respect of payments to non-residents, is plainly different from

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