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)

32,770/-. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of plastic pipes and fittings and containers of plastics at its manufacturing units situated in integrated industrial state. The assessee ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023 Vectus Industries Ltd company has claimed deduction under section 80IC of the Act for 3 different units i.e. 2 units located at Haridwar

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

32,240/-, by making disallowance of Rs.39,779/- towards share purchase expenses, adhoc disallowance of various other expenses amounting to Rs.50,000/- and addition of Rs.97,31,000/- u/s. 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Based on the above additions, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and imposed penalty of Rs.83

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)

2 of 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

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)

2 of 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

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)

2 of 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

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

32,532 ( Rs. 2,08,81,587/- towards running expenses and Rs. 18,50,945/- as addition to fixed assets). Thus, there was a surplus of Rs. 19,03,032/- which was stated to be below the maximum permissible limit of 15 percent for accumulation of income. The return of income for the assessment year 2023-24 was filed

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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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 of Rs.\n1,04,35,000/- under the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of\njudicial precedents.”\nThe Id. A/R of the assessee further submitted

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2019-20 is\nallowed and appeals filed by the Revenue in AYs 2021-22, 2022-23 and\n2023-24 are dismissed

2 of section 263 of the Act. He remitted the order back to the AO\nto pass fresh order after conducting proper enquiries.\n9.\nOn careful consideration of material facts on record, we observed that Ld\nPCIT had completely ignored the other facts on record that in the case of\nIrfan, in subsequent appeal before CIT(A), the addition

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2019-20 is\nallowed and appeals filed by the Revenue in AYs 2021-22, 2022-23 and\n2023-24 are dismissed

2 of section 263 of the Act. He remitted the order back to the AO\nto pass fresh order after conducting proper enquiries.\n9. On careful consideration of material facts on record, we observed that Ld\nPCIT had completely ignored the other facts on record that in the case of\nIrfan, in subsequent appeal before CIT(A), the addition

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

section 143(3) of the LT. Act as confirmed by CIT (A) vide Order dt. 21.02.2022 confirming the impugned addition of Rs 71,44,045/-made on merely assumptions, presumptions, surmises & conjectures is wrong, illegal and bad in law. 3.1 Because in any view, the impugned addition as confirmed

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 32. Thus, under the facts and circumstances of this case, no addition in respect of these expenses totaling Rs. 2, 10,05,436/- can be legally made. • The remaining disallowed

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

32,00,000 A. Y. 2021-22 - Rs. 25,00,000 A. Y. 2022-23 - Rs.25,00,000 Total - Rs. 1,47,44,000 Further, it has been 2 Surbhi Anand submitted that out of the Interest received on maturity of Rs. 2,40,40,000 during the year (on which TDS has been deducted

RANJANA CHATURVEDI,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalito-1(3)(1), Ranjna Chaturvedi Ayakar Bhawan, 9A, T Point, Behind Back Vs. Radhika Vihar, Gate Skjs, Govind Nagar, Phase-Ii, Mathura-281001 (U.P.) Mathura-281004 (U.P.) Pan-Afopc4950N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M.M. Agarwal, Ca Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

section 69A of the Act.” 4. Ground of appeal No.2 is with respect to the disallowance of Rs.1,12,596/- made out of interest expenses claimed by the assessee. 5. The AO observed that the assessee has withdrawn Rs.10,00,000/- for construction of house which was for personal purpose and had paid interest on bank borrowing of Rs.4

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

2\nremaining\nparties\nnamely\nMukesh\nSharma and Umesh\nChand Jain. Thus, the\nthe\nunsecured loan is discussed\nhere and the CIT(A) has given\nhis finding that the AO has\nfailed to bring on record\nthat how cash of the appellant\nFirm had changed\nIt has been discussed by the\nCIT(A) as under\n\"the AO outrightly ignored