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)

27 SCC 181, in which the Apex Court has quoted with approval its earlier judgment in State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei AIR 1967 SC 1269. According to it, when by reason of action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice must be followed. In such an event, although

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)

27 SCC 181, in which the Apex Court has quoted with approval its earlier judgment in State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei AIR 1967 SC 1269. According to it, when by reason of action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice must be followed. In such an event, although

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)

27 SCC 181, in which the Apex Court has quoted with approval its earlier judgment in State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei AIR 1967 SC 1269. According to it, when by reason of action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice must be followed. In such an event, although

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. CHITAVALSAH JUTE MILLS LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Acit, Vs. Chitavalasah Jute Mills Ltd, Range-1, 73-74, 201, Sheetala House, Faridabad Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccc6834D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

27,242 is being deleted. 10.7 Ground No 3: That the A.O. was wrong in disallowing interest of Rs.99,69,661/- starting non- verification while the case was completed u/s 144. From the details on record, it is seen that the Finance Charge of Rs 99,69,661 comprise the following: Sl No Item Amount (Rs) Amount (Rs) Interest

KUSHAL VARSHNEY,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 4(1)(3), ALIGARH

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Kushal Varshney, Vs. Ito, 1/83, Naurangabad, Aligarh Ward-4(1)(3), Up 202001 Aligarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aevpv0578H Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 06/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/02/2025

27,810/- towards purchase of liquor which was sought to be treated as expenses incurred in contravention of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. A show-cause notice stood issued to the assessee as to why the same should not be disallowed

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)

disallowed. The tax liability of Rs. 13,319/- was upheld, and together with interest under sections 234B and 234C amounting to Rs. 1,969/-, and health and education cess of Rs.533/-, a total demand of Rs. 15,820/- was raised. Notably, the said intimation did not specify any reason or adjustment under section 143(1)(a), nor did it issue

JVH TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(1), AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshjvh Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Shop No. A28, V. S. Ward-2(1)(1), Plaza, Sector-3A, Avas Agra Vikas Colony, Sikandra, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcj3746N Assessee By : Shri Rohit Dua, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

disallowance made u/s 40A(3) of the Act in respect of salary paid to Directors Ms. Ruchi Bhatnagar and Mr Vivek Bhatnagar. 4. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a private limited company and had filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 27

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

27- 08-2020 declaring total income of Rs. 9,60,980/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for the reason of “business expenses / large commission expenses and low net profit”. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Learned AO verified the large commission expenses incurred by the Assessee and they were found to be in order. However

SAINT MARKS SCHOOL SIKSHA SAMITI,AGRA vs. JAO (EXEMPTIONS), AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Saint Marks School Siksha Samiti, Vs. Jurisdictional Assessing 41, Saint Peters Colony, Ghatia, Officer-Exemption Hariparvat, Agra Ward, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaeas7764A

27 of Form 10BB for reporting various sources of application, the auditor had inadvertently reported the figure of surplus of Rs. 19,03,032/-. Based on this, the return was duly processed under section 143(1) of the Act by the Learned CPC by disallowing

NEETA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Neeta Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-23, New Agra, Agra Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpa0936E Assessee By : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

disallowance of exemption of Rs. 95,20,372 being the long term capital gain arising on transfer of shares Capital Trade Link Ltd. Under section 10(38) of I.T.Act, 1961. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in enhancing the income

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]

section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 is as per law and addition of Rs.5,17,61,420/-made by applying the Percentage Completion method is justified. 4. That the appellant craves leaves to add or delete or alter or modify any one or more ground (s) of appeal during the appellate proceedings. 5. That the order

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

27(2)Delhi- ITAT Delhi ITA no.\n7496/Del/2019 AY 2015-16 (CLPB 9-17)\nv) Weilburger Coatings (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax*\n[2024] 165 taxmann.com 232 (Kolkata - Trib.) IN THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH\n'C' (CLPB 18-19)\nvi) Rajesh Jain v ITO Ward-1 Jind (2007) 162 Taxman 212 (Chandigarh)\n(CLPB 20-22)\nvii

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)

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 was deleted. Further

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)

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 was deleted. Further

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)

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 was deleted. Further

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

27 PCIT vs. Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd. (Gujarat)\n4. [2022] 140 Taxmann.com 370 Rajhans Construction (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITAT, Surat)\n5. DCIT vs. Tripoli Management Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 05/AHD/2024 (ITAT Ahmedabad) order\ndated 01.08.2024.\n9.\nLd. AR further submitted that if the AO had any doubts about the\ngenuniness of the transactions or regarding the creditworthiness

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

section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3.\nThe Ld. CIT(A)-V, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to verify\nthe investment of Rs. 89,79,185/- out of total addition of Rs.99,56,944/- made u/s 69B of the\nAct on account of unexplained investment in factory building at Kota

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

section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3.\nThe Ld. CIT(A)-V, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to verify\nthe investment of Rs. 89,79,185/- out of total addition of Rs.99,56,944/- made u/s 69B of the\nAct on account of unexplained investment in factory building at Kota