NEW KALPANA ENT UDYOG,AURAIYA vs. I.T,O, AURAIYA

In the result. Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section I.T.A No. 49/Agra/2015 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 40A(3) and no exceptional circumstances as enumerated in Rule 6DD could be found applicable in those cases where the payments were made in cash exceeding Rs.20,000/-. Thus, he disallowed

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

disallowance under section 40a(ia) of the Act or not. Whether the payment in dispute made by way of cheque

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S PREM MOTORS PVT LTD., GWALIOR

The appeals of the department are dismissed

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 4.4.3 As a general norm security deposits received while any property is given on rent i.e while entering into rental agreements are interest free and no interest is paid on such security deposits. Therefore interest of Rs.12,00,000/- @ 6% per annum paid by the assessee on security deposit to TAPL is disallowed

KUSHAL VARSHNEY,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 4(1)(3), ALIGARH

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Kushal Varshney, Vs. Ito, 1/83, Naurangabad, Aligarh Ward-4(1)(3), Up 202001 Aligarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aevpv0578H Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 06/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/02/2025

section 40A(3) of the L.T. Act. Kushal Varshney 2. Because the purchases made, the disallowance of which has been

SH SANJAY BANSAL ,MORENA vs. A.C.I.T (CENTRAL), GWALIOR

In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed

Bench: learned CIT(Appeals) who has very exhaustively passed the impugned order in 60 pages and considered all the submissions of the assessee in the tabulated form and otherwise, which need not to be repeated again for the sake of brevity. However, learned CIT(Appeals) partly allowed assessee's appeal confirming the addition only to the extent of Rs.71,44,045/- as against addition of Rs.91,06,669/-. 4. Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds : "1.Because in any view, th

disallowable expenditure uls 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD of the 1.T. Act Rs. 71,44,045/ is grossily arbitrary, highly unjust, unwarranted capricious, wrong. illegal, bad in facts & law. 2. Because in any view, the Assessment Order dt. 21.12.2019 passed u/s 147 read with section

M/S BLUE LOTUS DEVELOPERS ,GWALIOR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), GWALIOR

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalm/S Blue Lotus Developers Vs. Cit(A)/Nfac, 101, The Empire, 33, City Delhi Center, Gwalior M.P.-474011 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaifb4692D Appellant .. Respondent

disallowance of interest income amounting to Rs.1,73,490/- keeping in view smallness thereof. Rejected accordingly. 4. Next comes the second issue between the parties wherein both the lower authorities invoked section 40A

KOTHIWAL ICE AND COLD STORAGE .P.LTD,ETAH vs. NFAC , NEW DELHI

Appeals is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Nfac, Kothiwal Ice & Storage Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Sadabad Road, Jaleshar, Etah, Uttar Pradesh Pan :Aacck1353P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2025 Order

section 40A (3) disallowance of Rs.65,79,902/- thereby holding the assessee to have made cash payments of Revenue’s expenditure

GOPALDAS SHIVHARE,GUNA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 40A(3) of the Act pertains to disallowance of payment by the assessee to a person in a day. The payment

M/S R.K. BAJPAI,AURAIYA vs. CIT -1, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S R.K. Bajpai, Vs..Dcit,Circle-1, Dibiyapur, Auraiya. Agra. Panno.Aaffr8521G (Assessee) (Revenue)

40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Agra has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of the claim of write off of temporary structures at Rs.13,82,300/-. 4. That the Ld. CIT has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance under section

JVH TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshjvh Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Shop No. A28, V. S. Ward-2(1)(1), Plaza, Sector-3A, Avas Agra Vikas Colony, Sikandra, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcj3746N Assessee By : Shri Rohit Dua, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act on the ground that assessee had made cash payment in excess of Rs 20,000 and completed

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 under section 40A(ia) of the 'Act' and your honour, therefore, may kindly delete the same.” 10. Learned DR, however

M/S A K TRANSPORT AGENCY,FARRUKHABAD vs. CIT APPEAL, ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 154 of the Act. 7. The assessee filed an appeal with CIT (Appeals) Aligarh on 25.05.2015 against the order of the Ld. A.O. wherein the income was assessed at Rs. 39,96,550/-. The Ld. CIT upheld the order and confirmed the disallowance u/s 40A

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

disallow the purchases made from the aforesaid three parties under section 40A(3) of the Act. The Assessee furnished the copy

ANKITA PALIWAL,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALIGARH

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

disallowed. The assessee filed form No. 67 with the revenue on 18.09.2020 as per Rule 128 declaring the foreign income and foreign tax paid. The assessee filed rectification application u/s. 154 of the Act on 22.10.2020, but the claim of the assessee for FTC was denied by the Assessing Officer on the ground that there was no mistake apparent from

MONIKA RATHORE,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, MORENA

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2023-24

40A OF THE 1922 ACT] 627. Specific provisions made in double taxation avoidance agreement Whether it would prevail over general provisions contained in Income- tax Act 1. It has come to the notice of the Board that sometimes effect to the provisions of double taxation avoidance agreement is not given by the Assessing Officers when they find that the provisions

GIRDHARI LAL KEDAR NATH SINGHAL,AGRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1), AGRA

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahmangirdhari Lal Kedar Nath Singhal, Vs. Ito 1 (1)(1), Ff – 1, Bhagwati Complex, Agra. M.G. Road, Opp. Shah Cinema, Agra – 282 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aacfg5458N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Naveen Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Order : 03.09.2025

disallowed as per section 40A(3) of the Act as the payments exceeding Rs.10,000/- in a day had been

DINESH KUMAR GUPTA,AGRA vs. ITO, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

disallowed under the provision of section 40A(3) of the IT Act 1961 but the expenses have been allowed by the AO. Hence

AVNEESH KUMAR CHATURVEDI,AGRA vs. I.T.O-2(2), AGRA

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

disallowance u/s 40A(3), however, such amount was only cash withdrawal from the bank. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of advertisement through Hoardings/Signboards, which it does for Govt. Departments in the trade name of M/s A.K. Traders, being the proprietorship firm. The assessee had filed his Income Tax return