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)

36. Since, this issue go to the root of the matter, we deem it fit and appropriate to address this preliminary ground first. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available from record. The name of the assessee company was changed from Shree Basant Exim Pvt Ltd to Hydrise Foods Pvt. Ltd. A search and seizure

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)

36. Since, this issue go to the root of the matter, we deem it fit and appropriate to address this preliminary ground first. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available from record. The name of the assessee company was changed from Shree Basant Exim Pvt Ltd to Hydrise Foods Pvt. Ltd. A search and seizure

SATISH PRAKASH AGARWAL,AGRA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC erred in restricting the deduction of interest expense only to the extent of interest income thereby maintaining the disallowance on account of interest expense to the extent of Rs. 20,46,265/- out of the total disallowance

GOVIND AGARWAL, GWALIOR,GWALIOR vs. DCIT- CIRCLE 2(1), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

disallowance of delayed payment of employees’s contribution towards PF/ESI by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed the claim for reason that no notification\nwas issued by the Central Government in terms of section 105(3) of the Act. Therefore, only\nissue remained for our consideration is whether any notification as provided in section\n105(3) is issued by the Central Government to this effect or not.\n16.3. Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 provides

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is partly

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

36,000 0.37% 2012-13 2,43,12,66,0 14,04,74,00 5.78% 96,45,000 0.40% 2013-14 2,50,43,49,6 14,24,92,19 5.69% 1,01,55,7 0.41% 70 8 01 The aforesaid table would clearly demonstrate that the trading results disclosed by the appellant are stable and consistent, showing reasonable profit

ASHOK AUTO SALES LTD.,AGRA vs. DCITCIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Ashok Auto Sales Limited, Dcit, 12/146, Nunhai, Agra, Circle-2(1)(1), Uttar Pradesh-282005 Vs Agra Pan-Aabca3711C Assessee Revenue

36(1)(v)(a) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) leading to disallowance of the sum to the extent not credited to the employee's account on or before the due date stipulated in the respective PF Act and ESI Act. Therefore, in view of the remarks in the audit report, adjustments can be made in terms of section

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

DEEPAK POPTANI,AGRA vs. J.A.O CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2019-20

2. We heard learned representative for assessee and ld. Sr. DR for revenue on the aforesaid limited issue. 3. We noticed at the time of passing order dated 27.08.2025 on assessee’s miscellaneous application No. 03/Agr/2024 that, while adjudicating ground No. 1, the Tribunal seems to have lost sight of bifurcation provided by assessee in his written submissions dated

ASHOKA GENERAL INDUSTRIES,MATHURA vs. JURISDICTIONAL A.O., WARD-1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Return. The Impugned Order Is Grossly Arbitrary, Highly Unjust, Unwarranted, Perverse, Wrong, Illegal & Bad In Law.

disallowance of Rs.6,14,929/- has been confirmed by the 'NFAC in summary and prejudice manner, without discussing less distinguishing the Judgments of Jurisdictional High Court referred and relied upon by the ‘Appellant’. 4. BECAUSE, in any view of the matter the issue under appeal stands squarely covered in favour of the 'Appellant' by the recent Order dated 14.06.2021 passed

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

36,484/-\n2.\nConveyance Expenses\n1,26,809/-\n31,702/-\n3.\nDepreciation Expenses\n2,44,778/-\n61,195/-\n4.\nDress Expenses\n1,99,408/-\n49,852/-\n5.\nEmployee Provident Fund\n81,22,815/-\n20,30,704/-\n6.\nEmployee State Insurance\n15,29,419/-\n3,82,355/-\n7.\nRebate & discount\n2,35,195/-\n58,799/-\n8.\nRent Expenses

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

K P ENTERPRISES,ETAWAH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , FIROZABAD

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

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

2. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) the Act. In the penalty order, the AO observed that the assessee firm was in the business of civil contracts and working for Government department during the period relevant to the AY 2014-15 and it filed its return of income

MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-V, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to verify the investment of Rs. 89,79,185/- out of total addition of Rs.99,56,944/- made u/s 69B of the Act on account of unexplained investment in factory building at Kota

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

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-V, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to verify the investment of Rs. 89,79,185/- out of total addition of Rs.99,56,944/- made u/s 69B of the Act on account of unexplained investment in factory building at Kota