SMT. NEETA SHARMA,AGRA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

9. by Rule 6DD (k) of the IT Rules, 1962, observing that there-under, no disallowance is called for, where the payment is made by a person to his agent whereas in this case, the assessee made payment to truck drivers, who are not the assessee’s agents. 10. The assessee has argued that section 40A

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 40A(3), as these payments have been made on account of business expediency where insistence of cash by the agents and truck drivers has been established by the appellant. 7. From the record, it is seen that the banking facility at village Ballarpur were not there as has been rightly observed by the Ld. CIT(A) at para

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

9,44,045/- for so called Cash Purchases and 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

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

The appeals of the department are dismissed

9 Gopal Maheswari (ITA No 23 of 2013), CIT V. Subrat Roy, Lucknow (Order dt. 27/08/2013) and an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Gopal & Sons (HUF) Vs. CIT’, (Civil Appeal No. 12274 of 2016). On the basis of these cases, he vehemently argued that the loan/advance received by the assessee company from TAPL

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

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 40A(3) of the Act. This was upheld by the Learned CITA. 6. We find that there is absolutely no dispute that purchase of goods has been made by the assessee from Shri

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 IT Act, 1961.” 7 9. Disallowance of local expenses of Rs.34,150/- is not under challenge before this Bench. The ld. CIT, while confirming the disallowance has observed that: “8.3.1 In the case of assessee total payment of Rs. 4,92,250/- towards rent is made to Mr. Gorelal Mishra which is evident from the account

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

9,53,000/- is uncalled for. The authorities below had made the disallowance on mere doubt, despite the audit-report clearly stating that the assessee was not liable for tax deduction at source under any provision of the 'Act'. The 'appellant 'had also furnished details of payees of machinery, rent vide reply dated 28- 12-2016 before

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 in question have been made by the assessee to a person in a day, may be I.T.A No. 136/Agra/2016 7 through different drivers, from different vehicles. As such, the addition as confirmed is upheld. 9

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

40A(3) of the Act, there was, certainly, a mistake of law apparent from record. Reliance has been placed on ‘CIT vs. Popular Vehicle and Service Ltd.’, 191 Taxman 333 (Ker). Further, reference has also been made to section 154 (1A) of the Act, as per which, where any matter has been considered and decided in any proceeding

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

9) of the 1962 6 | P a g e Rules. Return of income was filed by assessee belatedly on 31.08.2023, which was processed by the Revenue vide intimation u/s 143(1) dated 30.04.2024. Due date of filing the return of income was 31.07.2023. The assessee is resident and ordinarily resident in India under the provisions

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

9,61,800/- c) Rajat Kumar - PAN FYIPK0314J – Rs 12,46,250/- Total Purchases made from three parties – Rs 33,37,900/- 5. It is pertinent to note that the parties had filed their confirmations together with their bank statements directly before the Learned AO in response to notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act. The Assessee

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

section 40A(3) of the Act as the payments exceeding Rs.10,000/- in a day had been made to these persons. Accordingly, the Ground No. 1.1 and 1.2 are dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before ITAT raising various argumentative grounds of appeal, which is not as per the ITAT Rules. However, single grievance of the assessee is disallowance

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 out of the expenses incurred on Diwali, Salary expense, Miscellaneous expense, and tour and travelling expenses. A notice under section 148 was issued on 19.03.2014 to the assessee in respect of two issues- one, the difference of Rs.3,61,123/- noticed by the A.O. between the figures of gross receipts and the contract receipts as per the TDS certificates

PARMANAND,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD, 2(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the I.T. Act whereas in the Assessment order the addition has been made u/s 69C of the I.T. Act. This is apparently bad in law and not permissible under the Act. Reasons recorded have to be read as it is. No substitution/deletion/addition in the reasons recorded is permissible under the law. On this ground also

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

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