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

Section 40 (a) (i), in providing for disallowance of a payment made to a non-resident if TDS is not deducted

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)

Section 40(a)(i) of the Act are not applicable for the same. 26. The ld AO however, disregarded the aforesaid contentions of the assessee and proceeded to disallow

PRAGATI SINGH,GWALIOR vs. CIT, AAYKAR BHAVAN GWALIOR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in the above terms

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year:2013-14

disallowance of Rs.2,74,978 under section 40(a)(ia) is illegal unjustified and is bad in law. 2. The learned

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

disallowed in the hands of the partnership firm(Section 40(b)(iv)). The assessee has charged interest @ 12% from the said

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),AGRA, AGRA vs. EMCO EXPORTS, AGRA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

40(a)(i) of the Act and added to the income of the assessee. 3. Assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) found that the issue of commission payment to foreign agent also arose in assessment year 2022-23 and no adverse inference was drawn and the expenses towards commission paid to the foreign agent

KAMLA ASSOCIATES,SHEOPUR vs. ACIT-3(1), GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshkamla Associates, Vs. Acit, Pali Road, Sheopur, Circle-3(1), Mp Gwalior Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaffk5366A Assessee By : Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17/03/2026

disallowance of payment made to escorts limited violating the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 7. We have

TOMAR & BROTHERS,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

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

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowance of expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. (C) Addition of Rs.10,54,363/- of sundry creditors/debtors. In this regard, he submitted that the addition was made u/s. 41(1) and not u/s. 68 of the Act to invoke the provisions of section

ANUPAM MITTAL,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

40,000/- made on account of disallowance of payment of interest) without properly appreciating the facts brought on record by the Appellant during the course of assessment and appellate proceedings. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) (NFAC) has grossly misconceived the provisions of section

SHRI RAM PRASAD SOCIAL FOUNDATION,BHIND vs. TIO WARD-2(1), GWALIOR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2014-15

section 40(a)(ia) disallowance in the assessee’s hands on the ground that it had not complied with the TDS deduction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. CHITAVALSAH JUTE MILLS LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Acit, Vs. Chitavalasah Jute Mills Ltd, Range-1, 73-74, 201, Sheetala House, Faridabad Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccc6834D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

40% of this amount being Rs 11,90,27,242. I am in agreement with the submissions of the assessee that most of the amounts of sundry creditor balance has remained unchanged as compared to the last year, However, in the first round before the learned Commissioner, the learned CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs 49,72,098, Chitavalasah

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

40(A)(3) of the income tax act, 1961. 3. The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the confirmation which were filed during the assessment proceedings from the respective parties.” Sumit Kumar 3. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The Assessee is a proprietorship concern engaged in the business of shoe trading

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

disallowance of speculation loss of Rs.56,407/- under the head income from business or profession claimed as deduction from interest and remuneration from Partnership Firm as claimed by the assessee in the return of income filed with the Revenue, as the assessee could not furnish any evidences in respect of this loss. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with

SUBODH GUPTA,AGRA vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2022-23 Subodh Gupta Vs. Ito, 71, Saket Colony Shahganj Agra Ward 1(1)(2), Agra Agra Pan : Adqfs4617N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Prarthna Jalaan, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order

disallowing remuneration to partners amounting to Rs. 4,20,000, despite the same being well within the ceiling prescribed under section 40

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

40 Audit Report under section 44AB in Form No. 3CA & 3CD 41 – 50 Comparative position of Gross Profit & Net Profit margins 59 Month wise detail of various expenses 60 – 65 Detail of sundry creditors in excess of Rs. 1 lac 66 Month wise detail of Raw Milk Purchase 67 Month wise Consumption of Raw Milk & Other Ingredients 68 Month wise

SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT ASHOKNAGAR ,ASHOK NAGAR vs. ITO ASHOK NAGAR MP, MADHYA PRADESH

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

sections": [ "143(3)", "250", "80P", "40A(3)", "40(a)(ia)" ], "issues": "Whether the NFAC erred in passing an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant, and whether the disallowances

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

40,000/- – (Rs. 1,47,44,000/-). It was submitted that while 3 Surbhi Anand processing the return u/s 143 (1) of the Act, the CPC accepted the returned income but disallowed TDS credit of Rs. 24,04,000/-, and submits that the assessee is very much entitled to the TDS credit, and by not allowing the same would result

VARDAN CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

section 50C of the Act and noted that the escapement of income was thereto the extent of Rs.21,41,250/-(Rs.1,11,41,250/- - Rs.90,00,000/-). 5. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer for the reasons stated in the assessment order disallowed the claim of expenses amounting to Rs.19,40

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)

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.1,09,03,269/- Sh. Dheeraj