HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

disallowance of depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against the above said assessment order dated 31.03.2016, learned CIT(A) vide order dated 25.06.2025 affirmed the rejection of accounts and sustained the addition made by AO on account of low profit rate. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal in ITA No.342/Agr/2025 before the ITAT, which has been partly allowed

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

disallowance of depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against the above said assessment order dated 31.03.2016, learned CIT(A) vide order dated 25.06.2025 affirmed the rejection of accounts and sustained the addition made by AO on account of low profit rate. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal in ITA No.342/Agr/2025 before the ITAT, which has been partly allowed

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

43,49,6 14,24,92,19 5.69% 1,01,55,7 0.41% 70 8 01 The aforesaid table would clearly demonstrate that the trading results disclosed by the appellant are stable and consistent, showing reasonable profit margins. There is no significant variation warranting any adverse inference. Further, despite the consistent financial performance, the Ld. Assessing Officer made a bald

SHYAMA SHYAM INFRADEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AGRA vs. ITO 2(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshshyama Shyam Vs. Ito, Infradevelopers Pvt Ltd, Ward-2(1)(2), Khasra No. 961, Bhahistabad, Agra Sikandra, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aatcs9899R Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Agarwal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R

6,21,43,000/- during the year, out of which, the assessee had shown only ₹3,86,89,960/- as gross receipts. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act is issued to the assessee on 30.07.2022. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed its return of income on 23.08.2022 disclosing the same total income

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

43,682/- as per 26AS. If all these facts are considered in totality, the genuineness of these expenses have not been established. Therefore, I am in agreement with the findings of the AO while disallowing these expenses. The case laws relied upon by the appellant are not going to help the appellant as those decisions were delivered on the basis

PAWAN KUMAR CHAUHAN,MAINPURI vs. ITO- WARD 2 (5) , AGRA, AGRA

6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the\nAct\").\n2.\nGrounds raised by the assessee are as under :\n\"1. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly and arbitrarily confirmed all the\nadditions made by the Assessing Officer without considering the\nAudited Balance Sheet, purchase deed of properties, proof of life\ninsurance premium and tution fees

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

section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3.\nThe Ld. CIT(A)-V, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to verify\nthe investment of Rs. 89,79,185/- out of total addition of Rs.99,56,944/- made u/s 69B of the\nAct on account of unexplained investment in factory building at Kota

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)

disallowed, since the sales were made by the appellant, not doubted and the appellant has also produced the production details of frozen meat in quantity. ii). The suppliers are regular tax payers and they have filed their ITRs and computation of Income. iii). The purchase invoices clearly mention the detail of ‘Raw Boneless Meat’. iv). All the payments/ for purchases

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)

disallowed, since the sales were made by the appellant, not doubted and the appellant has also produced the production details of frozen meat in quantity. ii). The suppliers are regular tax payers and they have filed their ITRs and computation of Income. iii). The purchase invoices clearly mention the detail of ‘Raw Boneless Meat’. iv). All the payments/ for purchases

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)

disallowed, since the sales were made by the appellant, not doubted and the appellant has also produced the production details of frozen meat in quantity. ii). The suppliers are regular tax payers and they have filed their ITRs and computation of Income. iii). The purchase invoices clearly mention the detail of ‘Raw Boneless Meat’. iv). All the payments/ for purchases

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)

43(3) has to be quashed, thus ordered accordingly. The ground raised by the Assessee is accordingly allowed.” 18. On the other hand, learned CIT-DR relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd. – [2015] 374 ITR 595 (SC) and Mumbai ITAT decision in the case of Pratibha Pipes and Structural

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)

43(3) has to be quashed, thus ordered accordingly. The ground raised by the Assessee is accordingly allowed.” 18. On the other hand, learned CIT-DR relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd. – [2015] 374 ITR 595 (SC) and Mumbai ITAT decision in the case of Pratibha Pipes and Structural

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

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 43B. Hence, the assessee gets a relief of Rs 13,90,285. 10.8 Ground No 4: That the A.O. was wrong in disallowing depreciation of Rs.6784622 /- stating non- verification while the case was completed u/s 144. From the submissions made by the assessee, particularly, Page No. 14 of PB, it is seen that depreciation amounting to Rs.6784622 /- has already

BHARTI BANSAL,AGRA vs. DCIT-1, AGRA

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11

6. I have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record. I have observed that the assessee Shri Rakesh Kumar Bansal has filed return of income on 31.10.2010 declaring income of Rs.31,10,060/-. The return of income was processed by Revenue u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny

M/S RAJEEV KUMAR CONTRACTOR PVT.LTD.,FIROZABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

section 57(3) interest deduction against interest income from other sources could not be accepted in the assessee’s favour. 4. Both the learned representative reiterate their respective stand against and in support of correctness of the impugned revision directions. We first of all not in this factual backdrop that the assessee has filed his paper book running into

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

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-V, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to verify the investment of Rs. 89,79,185/- out of total addition of Rs.99,56,944/- made u/s 69B of the Act on account of unexplained investment in factory building at Kota

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

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-V, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to verify the investment of Rs. 89,79,185/- out of total addition of Rs.99,56,944/- made u/s 69B of the Act on account of unexplained investment in factory building at Kota