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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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 his written submissions in\nrespect of the additional ground on 08.01.2025 as under :-\n"1. In continuation to our earlier submission we would like to make further\nsubmission about our additional ground of appeal which

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

35 and when it was enquired\nin e-filing portal, the fact of passing of order was come to the notice\nof the assessee. Thereafter immediately assessee rushed up and filed\nthe appeal. Under these circumstances, it is requested that the delay\nbe condoned as the assessee has sufficient cause for such delay.\n3. After perusing the facts, we find

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)

35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court

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)

35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court

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)

35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court

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

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

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

35,606/-, learned Assessing Officer allowed deduction to the extent of Rs.9,31,060/- (sale consideration of Rs.8,50,000/- plus Stamp Duty of Rs.81,060/-) pertaining to purchase of first new residential house property No. 19/180, Tila Ammeri Khan, Ghati Mamu Bhanja, Agra, treating it as a new residential house property, but disallowed the balance claim of Rs.28

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

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

35,564/- against which the application of income for charitable purposes was Rs. 2,27,32,532 ( 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

GUNJAN GUPTA,NOIDA vs. PR.CIT-1, AGRA

In the result, this appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usgunjan Gupta Vs. Pr. Cit A-45, Sector – 26 Agra - 1 Noda – 201 301, Uttar Pradesh Pan No. Abupg 5419 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav- Cit(D.R.) Date Of Hearing: 06.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.12.2023

2 assessment for A.Y. 2014-15 was completed under section 143(3) with capital amounting to Rs.22441756.00/-.” 3. In this case, learned Pr. CIT observed that on perusal of assessment records, it was noted that the case was selected under limited scrutiny for the reason – “substantial increase in capital in a year”. Capital of Rs.2,35,09,650/- was introduced

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

section 115BBE of the Act to determine the rate of tax. 3. Further, the AO observed that there is a mismatch of credit in his bank account and the gross receipts declared by the assessee. He observed that there was difference of Rs.47,35,668. Accordingly, he treated the above difference as business transactions and estimated the income

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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

2)(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