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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

section 250(6) of the Act.\n5. Perused the records and heard learned representative for the\nassessee and Id. departmental representative for the revenue.\n6. Learned AR has submitted that the impugned order of Id.\nCIT(Appeals) is not sustainable, having been passed without affording\nreasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.\n7.\nLd. DR, on the other hand

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2020-21, wherein learned CIT(A) has allowed assessee’s first appeal for statistical purposes, deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 2. Briefly stating, the appellant assessee is a partnership firm and was engaged in the business of manufacturing and export

PEHAL,CHHATARPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), GWALIOR

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

Bench: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR (Accountant Member)

disallowed. Assessee did not comply with the notice(s), which led to denial of deduction u/s. 11 of the Act by the Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs.5,83,244/- claimed by the assessee vide re-assessment order dated 27.03.2015 framed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 144/147 of the 1961 Act. 5. Assessee filed first appeal with

RAVINDRA KUMAR RAI,JHANSI vs. ITO , CHAHATARPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

disallowance of remuneration paid to the partners and other expenditure in the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. 2. At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) in paragraph No. 5 & 6 of the impugned orders, referring to the orders in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattahargee ITA No. 686/Agra/2018, 13 & 14/Agra/2020

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

6) of the Income Tax Act, same is liable to be set\naside.\n2.\nThat while sustaining the addition as made by the AO, the\nNFAC has not made any enquiry or verification as per power vested\nwith them under Section 250(4) of the Іпсоте Тах Act, in absence\nof which the appeal dismissed by the NFAC is highly

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

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Ground No. 1, 2 & 3 raised by the assessee relate to the addition of Rs.21,12,576/- confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) pertaining to expenses incurred by the assessee in respect of purchase of material, labourexpenses, repair and maintenance, establishment, selling and administrative expenses

PAWAN KUMAR CHAUHAN,MAINPURI vs. ITO- WARD 2 (5) , AGRA, AGRA

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the\nAct\").\n2.\nGrounds raised by the assessee are as under :\n\"1. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly and arbitrarily confirmed all the\nadditions made by the Assessing Officer without considering the\nAudited Balance Sheet, purchase deed of properties, proof of life\ninsurance premium and tution

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. 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

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961( hereinafter referred to as”Act”) dated 31.03.2012 pertaining to assessment year (A.Y) 2005-06 and 2002-03 respectively. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. Since it’s a very old appeal, filed in 2012,it was proceeded to be adjudicated exparte on the basis

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

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961( hereinafter referred to as”Act”) dated 31.03.2012 pertaining to assessment year (A.Y) 2005-06 and 2002-03 respectively. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. Since it’s a very old appeal, filed in 2012,it was proceeded to be adjudicated exparte on the basis

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

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

PRAMOD KUMAR GOYAL,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3) GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance of expenses debited in the profit and loss account for want of supportive documentary evidences. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals) who confirmed the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer and dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, an adjournment application was placed on record

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

250 Loan creditors' was pointed out by Ld. AO which amounts to Rs. 17,02,25,505/-\n3. The assessee during the course of assessment proceedings filed following documents to prove\nthe genuineness of the Loan creditors:\nCopies of Bank Statements of all the creditors\nCopies of Aadhar/Pan of all creditors depicting address and other details.\nCopies of account

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

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

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