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 a sum of Rs. 1

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

section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3.\nThe Ld. CIT(A)-V, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to verify\nthe investment of Rs. 89,79,185/- out of total addition of Rs.99,56,944/- made u/s 69B of the\nAct on account of unexplained investment in factory building at Kota

TOMAR AND BROTHERS,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(5), ETAWAH

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowance of Rs. 9,53,000/- made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of rent paid for hiring of JCB Porcelain, Roller, Tractor and Tanker is unwarranted, without any evidence brought on records to conclude that any payment was made to any individual in excess of the threshold limit of Rs. 1

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

1) were issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings. The assesseehas declared income from house property, income from other sources and loss from business or profession, in the return of income filed with the Revenue. The assessee has shown loss of Rs.10,06,265/- from business or profession, which was sought

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

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

disallowance of commission paid, but tax not deducted to the extent of Rs.1,85,6,973/-. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), Gurgaon. Learned CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by assessee on another issue and dismissed the issue of commission paid to non-resident without TDS deduction. 4. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee

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

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 was deleted. Further

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

1)(c) is attracted on disallowance of expenditure u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. With regard to disallowance made by the Assessing Officer towards sundry creditors/debtors, we observe that the Assessing Officer has not quoted the relevant section

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

1. On the facts and circumstances of the Case The learned C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.2,74,978 under section 40

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

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

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)

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

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]

section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is hereby confirmed and the ground no. 1,2 and 6 are decided in negative and against the appellant.” 4.1. Similarly, the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the disallowance of interest of Rs.2,40

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

1), Gwalior. Nagar, Lahar Road, Bhind (MP). PAN : AAHTS4464K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Deependra Mohan, C.A. Department by Sh. Shailendra Shrivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing 13.02.2025 Date of pronouncement 13.02.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short

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

1. That the CIT(A) has erred on facta and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,90,27,242/-made by the AO on account of sundry creditors without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to furnish any evidences regarding genuineness of creditors (both fresh and carried over) during the assessment proceedings as well

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

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

1. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition of Rs. 4,20,000/-by disallowing the remuneration pad to partners and another addition of Rs.9,67,806/-by charging notional interest on loans advanced. 2. That the learned authorities below have erred in law as well

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

Section 147, which are placed on record in the paper book, which are reproduced hereunder : Reason for the As per the information in the possession of this office, the assessee has belief that income purchased shares of Rs. 1,37,45,896/-, during the FY 2011-12 has escaped corresponding to AY 2012-13. assessment The assessee has purchased shares