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)

1,31,750/-, the same was paid to various contractors and to various labourers and since the payment made to each labourer did not exceed Rs 10,000/-, there cannot be any disallowance under section

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

1).\nThe time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) had not expired for this year and\naccordingly, this year is a case of abated assessment year. The Ld. AO,\nmaking allegation of bogus purchases as in earlier years, disturbed the\nproduction yield of the assessee and disallowed 1/10th of total purchases\nbut ended up disallowing 1/10th of turnover

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

disallowances made in the assessment order. 6. BECAUSE, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the major addition of Rs.97,31,000/- made under section 56(2)(vii) of the 'Act' being on account of deeming fiction cannot be a valid foundation for levy of penalty under section 271(1

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)

1)(c ) of the Act, the same analogy could be drawn for the penalty under section 270A of the Act also. 11. In view of our aforesaid observations, we direct the Learned AO to cancel the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The grounds raised by the assessee are hereby allowed

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)

1)(c ) of the Act, the same analogy could be drawn for the penalty under section 270A of the Act also. 11. In view of our aforesaid observations, we direct the Learned AO to cancel the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The grounds raised by the assessee are hereby allowed

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)

1)(c ) of the Act, the same analogy could be drawn for the penalty under section 270A of the Act also. 11. In view of our aforesaid observations, we direct the Learned AO to cancel the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The grounds raised by the assessee are hereby allowed

MONIKA RATHORE,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, MORENA

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2023-24

31,2023. Assessee claimed credit of foreign prepaid taxes to the tune of Rs.10,95,293/- u/s 90, out of which claim of credit of prepaid taxes u/s. 90 to the tune of Rs.10,94,689/- was made with respect to income from salary to the tune of Rs.35,96,395/- earned from Google Germany. The Revenue has not allowed

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

1).\nTherefore, in cases other than those covered by Section 46 of the 2013 Land\nAcquisition Act, the levy of income-tax is barred by Section 96 and as a\nconsequence, the deduction or collection under Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act,\n1961, is impermissible\".\nIt is further seen that according to section 96 of the said

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

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)

31-12-1996 the approving authority was the CIT.). The Assessing Officer should submit the draft assessment order for such approval well in time. The submission of the draft order must be docketed in the order-sheet and a copy of the draft order and covering letter filed in the relevant miscellaneous ITA Nos. 86 & 87/AGR/2024 Hydrise Foods

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)

31-12-1996 the approving authority was the CIT.). The Assessing Officer should submit the draft assessment order for such approval well in time. The submission of the draft order must be docketed in the order-sheet and a copy of the draft order and covering letter filed in the relevant miscellaneous ITA Nos. 86 & 87/AGR/2024 Hydrise Foods

GRAM VIKAS KALYAN SANSTHAN,MATHURA vs. I.T.O. (TDS), AGRA

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhgram Vikas Kalyan Sansthan, Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds), Nagla Aklha, Sonkh – Goverdhan Road, Agra. Mathura – 281 123 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aaatg3272E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shalenndra Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025

section 201/201(1A) of the Act. In case, the payee declares the abovesaid income in their return of income and pays the due tax, the liability of the assessee is discharged and before making the disallowance, the Assessing Officer has to determine whether the assessee is in default or not u/s 201/201(1A). In 7 case, it is found that

JAN SEWA KHADI GRAMODHOG SEWA SANSTHAN,ETAWAH vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.254/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jan Seva Khadi Gramodhog Adit (Cpc_ Sewa Sansthan Bengaluru बनाम/ Vs. 64, Katra Sewa Kali Etawah 206001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaaj-6502-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Navin Gargh (Advocate) - Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

31-01-2020. The sole grievance of the assessee is denial of deduction u/s 12AA. It is the submission of Ld. AR that the assessee is a charitable trust and the relevant registration to lay hand on impugned deduction was granted by appropriate authority vide order dated 13-02-2014. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records

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

section 151 of the Act. The statutory notice dated 31.03.2021 issued u/s. 148 and subsequent notice issued u/s. 142(1) with questionnaire dated 15.11.2021 stood un-responded by the assessee. The assessee, however, submitted his reply dated 20.02.2022 in response to notice u/s. 142(1) dated 24.12.2021, which as per Assessing Officer, was not found satisfactory. Thereafter, show cause notice

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

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