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

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

40A(3) of the Act. For want of any response from the assessee, the Learned AO proceeded to disallow a sum of Rs 3,80,27,810/- being cash purchases made from Shri Gurdeep Singh Chadha (HUF) to be in violation of provisions of section

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

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

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

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

3) are safeguards. The said provisions are of practical importance. This reasoning of ours is based on the decision of this Court in Transmission Corporation(supra) in which this Court has observed that the provision of Section 195(2) is a safeguard. From this it follows that where a person responsible for deduction is fairly certain then he can make

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

section 40A(3) disallowance in very terms. P a g e | 3 M/s Blue Lotus Developers 7. This assessee’s appeal

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

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

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

The appeals of the department are dismissed

3, the revenue challenged the deletion by the CIT(A) of Rs.13,75,355/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5.1 Brief facts are that the assessee had paid interest @ 6% per annum on the security deposit of Rs.2.00 Cr to M/s Tanushaka Automobiles Pvt. Ltd amounting to Rs.12

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 (3

A.C.I.T.-2, AGRA vs. SMT. NEETA SHARMA PROP., AGRA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2007-08

3. Because in any view, the addition confirmed by ld. CIT(A) by disallowing interest in excess of interest 12% to relatives u/s 40A(2)(b) viz-a-viz (i) Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, (ii) Ramesh Chand Sharma HUF, (iii) Devangi Sharma, and (iv) Smt. Shivangi Sharma is arbitrary, unjust, excessive, and against the facts and law of the case

SMT. NEETA SHARMA,AGRA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2007-08

3. Because in any view, the addition confirmed by ld. CIT(A) by disallowing interest in excess of interest 12% to relatives u/s 40A(2)(b) viz-a-viz (i) Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, (ii) Ramesh Chand Sharma HUF, (iii) Devangi Sharma, and (iv) Smt. Shivangi Sharma is arbitrary, unjust, excessive, and against the facts and law of the case

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

DINESH KUMAR GUPTA,AGRA vs. ITO, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

3 material expenses shows various payments incurred in cash on different dates in excess of Rs. 20,000/-each, totaling to Rs. 18,21,313/- which are to be disallowed under the provision of section 40A

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

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

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

3, raised by the assessee are partly allowed in above terms. 7. Ground No. 4 relates to disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act amounting to Rs.9,53,000/- on account of non-deduction of tax at source on various expenses, which are mentioned in the ground reading as under : 4. BECAUSE, disallowance of Rs. 9,53,000/- made