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

disallowed the claim of the TDS credit of Rs. 24,04,000 reflected in Form 26AS for the impugned year resulting in appellant filing an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and also an online rectification under section 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7 Surbhi Anand The Id. CIT(A) passed the impugned order without issue of any notice

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

41,83,500/- for the year under consideration and the first complete\nscrutiny assessment was framed, wherein addition to the tune of Rs.\n1,08,00,000/- was made on assessee relating to excess salary paid to two\nemployees u/s 40A(2)(b) vide order dated 09.04.2021 u/s 143(3) of the\nAct, 1961. Copy of the order has been

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

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, under which he has made the addition. We infer that the Assessing Officer has made addition u/s. 41

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)

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 Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2014-15 153A Rs.5,84,183/- Rs.3,09,11,700/- Sh. Dheeraj

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)

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 Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2014-15 153A Rs.5,84,183/- Rs.3,09,11,700/- Sh. Dheeraj

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

section 41 of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer also did not make any inquiry with respect to the above figure of Rs 49,72,098. The appellant has submitted a number of case laws, in respect of ad-hoc addition as well as non-specification of the provisions of the Act under which the addition was made. Further

SAINT MARKS SCHOOL SIKSHA SAMITI,AGRA vs. JAO (EXEMPTIONS), AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Saint Marks School Siksha Samiti, Vs. Jurisdictional Assessing 41, Saint Peters Colony, Ghatia, Officer-Exemption Hariparvat, Agra Ward, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaeas7764A

41, Saint Peters Colony, Ghatia, Officer-Exemption Hariparvat, Agra Ward, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAEAS7764A Assessee by : Shri Mahesh Agarwal, CA Revenue by: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date of pronouncement 26/11/2025 O R D E R 1. The appeal in ITA No. 399/AGR/2025 for AY 2023-24, arises out of the order

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

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 Production of Dairy Products 69 Month wise detail of Sales

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)

41,83,500/- for the year under consideration and the first complete scrutiny assessment was framed, wherein addition to the tune of Rs. 1,08,00,000/- was made on assessee relating to excess salary paid to two employees u/s 40A(2)(b) vide order dated 09.04.2021 u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1961. Copy of the order has been

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)

41,83,500/- for the year under consideration and the first complete scrutiny assessment was framed, wherein addition to the tune of Rs. 1,08,00,000/- was made on assessee relating to excess salary paid to two employees u/s 40A(2)(b) vide order dated 09.04.2021 u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1961. Copy of the order has been

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)

41,83,500/- for the year under consideration and the first complete scrutiny assessment was framed, wherein addition to the tune of Rs. 1,08,00,000/- was made on assessee relating to excess salary paid to two employees u/s 40A(2)(b) vide order dated 09.04.2021 u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1961. Copy of the order has been

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

41,83,500/- for the year under consideration and the first complete\nscrutiny assessment was framed, wherein addition to the tune of Rs.\n1,08,00,000/- was made on assessee relating to excess salary paid to two\nemployees u/s 40A(2)(b) vide order dated 09.04.2021 u/s 143(3) of the\nAct, 1961. Copy of the order has been

DINESH CHAND KAUSHIK,ALIGARH vs. ITO, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2021-22

41(1) of the Act on account of unexplained sundry creditors and addition of Rs.20,33,180/- made on account of disallowance of various expenses claimed by assessee. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.3,63,46,544/- @ 200% of the amount of tax payable on the aforesaid two additions, vide penalty order dated 26.06.2023. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first

RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA,ETAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(1),, ETAH

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

41,884/-. Since, the assessee failed to produce bills and vouchers, he proceeded to disallow 15% of such expenses, to the extent of Rs.51,282/-. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC, Delhi and filed a detailed submission before him. After considering the detailed submission of assessee, learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal preferred

MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

section 132A. Similar is the\ndecision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs.\nContinental Warehousing Corporation [2015; 374 ITR 645] which has\nbeen followed in subsequent decision in CIT V/s Gurinder Singh Bawa\n(79 Taxmann.com 398 05/10/2015) which deals with a situation where\nin the original return of income was processed u/s 143(1

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

section 132A. Similar is the\ndecision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs.\nContinental Warehousing Corporation [2015; 374 ITR 645] which has\nbeen followed in subsequent decision in CIT V/s Gurinder Singh Bawa\n(79 Taxmann.com 398 05/10/2015) which deals with a situation where\nin the original return of income was processed u/s 143(1

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, MORENA vs. SHRI AGRASEN LOGISTICS, JOTAI ROAD, PORSA,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

1 to 5 of judgement\nset\nii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chunnilal as reported\nin 211 ITR 11. Copy placed at page 6 of judgement set regarding source of source.\niii)\nJudgment in the case of Mis. Loil Overseas Food Ltd. vs. ITO as reported in (2017)\n88 taxmann.com 782 (Chandigarh