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

disallowance under section 40a (ia) of the Act or not. We find that the CBDT by its recent Circular No.7 dated 22nd October, 2009 withdrawn its earlier Circulars Nos.23 dated 23

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

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

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)

23. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.” 5. In the instant case, on perusal of the penalty notice placed on record dated 30.12.2018, it is evident that the ld. AO had not struck off the irrelevant portion thereon mentioning the specific offence committed by the assessee. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision of Hon‟ble High Courts squarely applies

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)

23. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.” 5. In the instant case, on perusal of the penalty notice placed on record dated 30.12.2018, it is evident that the ld. AO had not struck off the irrelevant portion thereon mentioning the specific offence committed by the assessee. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision of Hon‟ble High Courts squarely applies

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)

23. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.” 5. In the instant case, on perusal of the penalty notice placed on record dated 30.12.2018, it is evident that the ld. AO had not struck off the irrelevant portion thereon mentioning the specific offence committed by the assessee. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision of Hon‟ble High Courts squarely applies

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

SURBHI ANAND,SOUTH DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2023-24] Surbhi Anand, Acit, C-155, Basement, Lajpat Circle-1(1)(1), Nagar-2, South Delhi, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Sanjay Place, Delhi-110024 Agra, Uttar Pradesh-282002 Pan-Acypa6580B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sahib P. Satsangi, Ca Respondent By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 Order, Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

23, in accordance with section 145 of the Act, and paid due taxes thereupon, and therefore, the interest income having already been offered for taxation in those years, were again not offered during the year, even though the entire interest amount was received during the year. It was further submitted that the assessee had declared interest income on accrual basis

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

MR. TASAVVER HUSAIN,FARRUKHABAD vs. ACIT , FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be imposed, by an order in writing, by the Assessing Officer, 97[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner

MR. TASAVVER HUSAIN,FARRUKHABAD vs. ACIT, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be imposed, by an order in writing, by the Assessing Officer, 97[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner

DY C.I.T.-3, MATHURA vs. M/S KOSHDA BUILDCON PVT. LTD., MATHURA

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed for

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

disallowed by the A.O., as much as Rs.1,96,82,204/- have already been capitalized by the appellant in its books of account, and another Rs. 13,23,232/-, being depreciation expenses, have been added back by the appellant while computing its income chargeable to tax and claimed under the provisions of section

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

23-\n31)\nviii) Rajnikant S Bhalavat v ACIT Circle 5(1) Ahmedabad ITA no, 495/Ahd/2019\nof AY 2015-16 dated 23/12/2022 (CLPB 32-38)\nix) Smt Manju Kaushik v DCIT (2020) 113 taxmann.com 643 (Jaipur-Trib)\n09/12/2019 (CLPB 39-48)\nWe pray the Hon'ble bench to direct the Id. AO to delete addition

SH. SRIDHAR PANDEY,AURAIYA vs. A.C.I.T.-2, AGRA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 292C of the Act, the diary is to be attributed to as belonging to the assessee and addition to be confirmed in the hands of the assessee.Theaddition of ₹16,70,000/- made in the hands of the assessee is therefore directed to be deleted . 11. Ground of appeal No. 1 is accordingly allowed. 12. Ground of appeal

SHRI SRIDHAR PANDEY S/O,AURAIYA vs. A.C.I.T.-2, AGRA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 292C of the Act, the diary is to be attributed to as belonging to the assessee and addition to be confirmed in the hands of the assessee.Theaddition of ₹16,70,000/- made in the hands of the assessee is therefore directed to be deleted . 11. Ground of appeal No. 1 is accordingly allowed. 12. Ground of appeal

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

23 TTJ (Cal.)\nit is observed that merely\nproving the identity of the\ncreditor does not\ndischarge the onus of the\nassessee if the capacity or\ncreditworthiness of the\ncreditors is not proved.\nThe assessee also has to\nprove the capacity to give\ncredit of the creditor.\nPavankumar M. Sanghvi\nVs. Income-tax Officer in\nwhich the apex court

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

section 132A. Similar is the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation [2015; 374 ITR 645] which has been followed in subsequent decision in CIT V/s Gurinder Singh Bawa (79 Taxmann.com 398 05/10/2015) which deals with a situation where in the original return of income was processed