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)

37 counts. Those details were submitted. Some of the issues raked up by the ld. Commissioner in the impugned order were between the group concerns, and their accounts were open before the AO in simultaneous proceedings. He was satisfied with these accounts. Thus, it is a case of inquiry and Explanation-2 cannot be invoked in the present case

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)

37 counts. Those details were submitted. Some of the issues raked up by the ld. Commissioner in the impugned order were between the group concerns, and their accounts were open before the AO in simultaneous proceedings. He was satisfied with these accounts. Thus, it is a case of inquiry and Explanation-2 cannot be invoked in the present case

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)

37 counts. Those details were submitted. Some of the issues raked up by the ld. Commissioner in the impugned order were between the group concerns, and their accounts were open before the AO in simultaneous proceedings. He was satisfied with these accounts. Thus, it is a case of inquiry and Explanation-2 cannot be invoked in the present case

MOHD NAYEEM,JHANSI vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(5), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee including additional ground are remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21 Mohd Nayeem Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 74, Sadar Bazar Ward 2(3)(5), Jhanshi Jhansi Pan : Acfpn3382F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Nitin Goyal, Advocate & Sh. Amit Goyal, Advocate Department By Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per : S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assessee Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Of Learned Cit(Appeals) -2, Chennai Dated 05.12.2024 U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2020- 21. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice, Brief Facts Of The Case Relating To The Issues Are, Ld. Ar Submitted That The Assessee In Summary Assessment U/S 143(1) Of The Act Based On The Audit Report Disallowed The Amount Wherein The Auditor Has Declared In Form No. 3Cd That There Is Outstanding Payment Due Of Rs. 81,08,561/- To Gst, Based On The Above Audit Report,Cpc Has Disallowed The Above Said Outstanding U/S 43B Of The Act.

Section Nature of liability Amount Tax, Duty, Cess, Fee GST 8108561 etc (State No whether sales tax, goods & service Tax, customs duty, excise duty or any other indirect tax, levy, cess, impost, etc., is passed through the profit and loss account.) That at the outset there had been no requirement of such remark in the audit report if all such

AJAY BHATIA,KANPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

disallowing the assessee’s revenue expenditure representing interest and remuneration payments etc. amounting to Rs.1,56,552/-; as not allowable under section 37(1) of the Act, in the Assessing Officer’s order dated 23rd of January, 2019, as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4

HARI OM AGARWAL,KOLARAS vs. ITO SHIVPURI, ASHOK NAGAR

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

4 That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating the penalty by issuing notice under section 270A of the Act 1961 without applying his mind at the time of passing the assessment order is bad and unsustainable in law 5 That for these such other grounds that

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

37 of Rs. 1,04,35,000/-being\npayment made to Ganpati Communication by the assessee. The payments\nmade to Ganpati Communications was not part of Contract receipts and hence\nthe disallowance was outside the scope of issue in limited scrutiny. The\nquestion of TDS on payment of Rs. 1,04,35,000/- was also outside the scope\nof issue

BUNDELKHAND GRAMOTTHAN EVAM SHAIKCHHIK VIKAS SAMITI,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD EXEMPTION, AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2021-22

disallowing the amount based on Form-10B. 4. Aggrieved, assessee filed a rectification application u/s. 154 of the Act and the same was denied. 5. It was brought to my notice that while certifying the Form-10B, the auditor of assessee has, by mistake, filled column -3 row 3 as zero instead of Rs.14,84,424/-. He brought

AL HAMD AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD,ALIGARH vs. DC/ACIT, ALIGARH

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

37,860/- on 29.10.2020. Case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer made several additions, including disallowance of commission paid, but tax not deducted to the extent of Rs.1

SH. YUGAL KISHOR AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), ETAH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

37,45,896/- which became the reasons for belief of the Revenue that the income has escaped assessment. There are two additions made by the Assessing Officer. One is on account of disallowance of expenses of Rs.12,15,413/- by invoking the provisions of section 57(iii) and other disallowance is of Rs.56,407/- being speculation loss. Learned counsel relied

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

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

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

4. The three parties from whom Assessee had made purchases are as under :- a) Bhagavathi Prasad - PAN CFCPP4974F – Rs 11,29,850/- b) Pavan Kumar - PAN ISUPK0695H - Rs 9,61,800/- c) Rajat Kumar - PAN FYIPK0314J – Rs 12,46,250/- Total Purchases made from three parties – Rs 33,37,900/- 5. It is pertinent to note that the parties

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

37(1)of the LT. Act,\n1961, without appreciating the fact that addition on account of 10% of total purchases held\nto be bogus, was firmly based on incriminating material found during the course of search\nproceeding as well as independent investigation made by the department and credible\ninputs from external agencies.\n2.\nThe Ld. CIT(A)-V, Kanpur

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

37(1)of the LT. Act,\n1961, without appreciating the fact that addition on account of 10% of total purchases held\nto be bogus, was firmly based on incriminating material found during the course of search\nproceeding as well as independent investigation made by the department and credible\ninputs from external agencies.\n2.\nThe Ld. CIT(A)-V, Kanpur

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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 since the unsecured loans were utilized for making investment in the partnership firm from where income in the form of interest and remuneration was earned and offered for tax in the income-tax return. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

disallowed the claim of the TDS credit of Rs. 24,04,000 reflected in Form 26AS for the impugned year resulting in appellant filing an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and also an online rectification under section 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7 Surbhi Anand The Id. CIT(A) passed the impugned order without issue of any notice

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)

37,940/- Rs.13,40,304/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2010-11 153A Rs.3,07,943/- Rs.1,02,41,352/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2011-12 153A Rs.4,03,908/- Rs.1,50,00,460/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2012-13 153A Rs.4,38,939/- Rs.2,30,94,073/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2013-14 153A Rs.10,18,269/- Rs.1