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

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

40A(2)(b) vide order dated 09.04.2021 u/s 143(3) of the\nAct, 1961. Copy of the order has been placed in Paper Book, as\nAnnexure A.\nC. Thereafter, SCN notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on assessee dated\n15.03.2022, alleging that, the assessee had taken bogus accommodation\nentries from one Sh. Md. Irfan S/o Sh. Meharban. Copy placed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

40A(2)(b) vide order dated 09.04.2021 u/s 143(3) of the\nAct, 1961. Copy of the order has been placed in Paper Book, as\nAnnexure A.\nC. Thereafter, SCN notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on assessee dated\n15.03.2022, alleging that, the assessee had taken bogus accommodation\nentries from one Sh. Md. Irfan S/o Sh. Meharban. Copy placed

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

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)

40A(2)(b) vide order dated 09.04.2021 u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1961. Copy of the order has been placed in Paper Book, as Annexure A. C. Thereafter, SCN notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on assessee dated 15.03.2022, alleging that, the assessee had taken bogus accommodation entries from one Sh. Md. Irfan S/o Sh. Meharban. Copy placed

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)

40A(2)(b) vide order dated 09.04.2021 u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1961. Copy of the order has been placed in Paper Book, as Annexure A. C. Thereafter, SCN notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on assessee dated 15.03.2022, alleging that, the assessee had taken bogus accommodation entries from one Sh. Md. Irfan S/o Sh. Meharban. Copy placed

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)

40A(2)(b) vide order dated 09.04.2021 u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1961. Copy of the order has been placed in Paper Book, as Annexure A. C. Thereafter, SCN notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on assessee dated 15.03.2022, alleging that, the assessee had taken bogus accommodation entries from one Sh. Md. Irfan S/o Sh. Meharban. Copy placed

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

3 | P a g e tax credit (FTC) . Thus, the appeal of the assessee stood dismissed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). 5. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed appeal with the Tribunal, and the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has worked with Tata Consultancy Services in USA from January 2018 to March, 2018 and earned salary