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

250 of the Income Tax Act. 8. That the AO has erred on facts and in law while making the addition by disallowing of the expenses(by estimate) out of the expenses claimed under the Head ‘general administration and selling expenses’ , claimed as per provisions of Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, no disallowance is called for being , books

PRAMOD KUMAR DUBEY,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,1(3), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in appeal arising out of the intimation issued under section 143(1) by the CPC, Bengaluru on 28.02.2025, for the assessment year 2024-25. 2. Facts of the Case 2.1 The assessee, an individual resident of India, had originally filed her return of income under section

RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA,ETAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(1),, ETAH

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

disallow 15% of such expenses, to the extent of Rs.51,282/-. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC, Delhi and filed a detailed submission before him. After considering the detailed submission of assessee, learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us, raising following

SNEHA PANDEY,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

5), Etawah.\nPAN: BFWPP4889J\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nAssessee by\nSh. Manuj Sharma, Advocate\nDepartment by Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. DR\nDate of hearing\n15.07.2025\nDate of pronouncement\n30.07.2025\nORDER\nPER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:\nThis appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned\norder dated 15.05.2024 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2019-20/10188204 by\nLd. Commissioner of Income

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

5), Etawah. PAN :AAFT7729D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Anurag Sinha, Advocate Department by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing 27.03.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.04.2024 ORDER Per Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order 29.03.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC

ABC PAPER PRODUCTS,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1) AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowing the\nexemptions available to assessee is directed to be deleted. Accordingly, assessee get the\nrelief of INR 31,31,903/-. Ground of appeal Nos. 5 & 6 of the assessee are allowed.\n12. In view of the above facts and by further following the judgment\nof the hon'ble ITAT, Agra Bench and Delhi bench in aforesaid cases,\nwe hold

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

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) for the assessment year 2020- 21. 2. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2020-21, declaring income of Rs.45,99,37,860/- on 29.10.2020. Case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, notices

VARDAN CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

section 50C of the Act and noted that the escapement of income was thereto the extent of Rs.21,41,250/-(Rs.1,11,41,250/- - Rs.90,00,000/-). 5. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer for the reasons stated in the assessment order disallowed

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

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment Year [A.Y] 2012-13, wherein learned CIT(A) has partly allowed assessee's appeal. ITA No. 31/Agr/ 2022 Brief facts relating to appeal state that assessee filed his return of 2. income for A.Y. 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs.4,22,200/-. Assessee stated

PRAGATI SINGH,GWALIOR vs. CIT, AAYKAR BHAVAN GWALIOR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in the above terms

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year:2013-14

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Grounds raised by the assessee are as under : 1. On the facts and circumstances of the Case The learned C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.2,74,978 under section 40(a)(ia) is illegal unjustified and is bad in law. 2. The learned

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2015-16, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. Briefly stating, the facts, leading to the present appeal, are that the assessee filed his return of income in ITR-4S on 26.03.2018, declaring an income of Rs.3

TAHIR KHAN,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2014-15, wherein learned CIT(A)has dismissed assessee first appeal, confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, vide penalty order dated 16.03.2019. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged

SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT ASHOKNAGAR ,ASHOK NAGAR vs. ITO ASHOK NAGAR MP, MADHYA PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

250 rws 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is bad in\nlaw.\n3. That the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in law\nand on facts in sustaining the disallowance made by the Ld AO u/s 80P of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs 5,95,253/-\n4. That the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC

ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

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

section 250 of the Act, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed/dismissed assessee’sappeals respectively. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that both the appeals are time-barred by 39-40 days respectively. Delay condonation applications on behalf of Smt. RoshaniRaghuvanshi, staff member of the appellant are on record. The cause for the delay shown, is that

ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

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

section 250 of the Act, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed/dismissed assessee’sappeals respectively. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that both the appeals are time-barred by 39-40 days respectively. Delay condonation applications on behalf of Smt. RoshaniRaghuvanshi, staff member of the appellant are on record. The cause for the delay shown, is that

RAMKISHAN,ALIGARH vs. ITO 4(1)(3) ALIGARH, ALIGARH

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act has been passed on 31.01.2024, against which the appeal is to be filed before the Hon ble ITAT within sixty days from the date of order passed by the NFAC. That the assessee could not have filed the appeal within the stipulated time allowed under the Income Tax Act. The assessee is filing