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

disallowed as per the provisions of section 40A(3) rw.r. 6DD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The appellant Submitted that following purchases have been made in cash from the Cultivators of agricultural products and therefore, these payments are allowable as per the provisions of section 40A(3A) r.w.r. 6DD(e) 7| Page produce was purchased grower producer is placed

SH. YUGAL KISHOR AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), ETAH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

45,896/- which became the reasons for belief of the Revenue that the income has escaped assessment. There are two additions made by the Assessing Officer. One is on account of disallowance of expenses of Rs.12,15,413/- by invoking the provisions of section

GINNI FILAMENTS LTD.,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

disallowed the aforesaid liability and added Rs.34,45,60,149/- in the income of the assessee u/s. 41(1) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(Appeals) against the assessment order dated 22.09.2022 passed u/s. 143(3) r/w 2 | P a g e section144B of the Act. Learned CIT(Appeals) dismissed assessee’s first appeal

HARI OM AGARWAL,KOLARAS vs. ITO SHIVPURI, ASHOK NAGAR

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowance is called for being , books of accounts maintained by the assessee are duly accepted, provisions of Section 145(3) are not invoked. The addition made by the AO , sustained by the National Faceless Appeal Centre is liable to be deleted.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the impugned assessment year

SHUSHIL KUMAR GAUTAM,GABHANA ALIGARH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER 4(1)(1), ALIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

45,266/-as income from business covered by section 44AD of the Act on the presumptive income of Rs.6,56,400/-. 3.1. The Assessing Officer noted that the presumptive income of Rs.6,56,400/- was to be considered as income from profession within the scope of section 28 of the Act. The Assessing Officer further held that since the assessee

VARDAN CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

section 50C of the Act and noted that the escapement of income was thereto the extent of Rs.21,41,250/-(Rs.1,11,41,250/- - Rs.90,00,000/-). 5. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer for the reasons stated in the assessment order disallowed the claim of expenses amounting to Rs.19,40,000/- and Rs.9,45

JOURA CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MORENA, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO, MORENA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19 Joura Co-Operative Marketing Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Society Limited Ward-1, Morena The Joura Dist Morena Dist. Morena Pan :Aabaj1828K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S. N. Agarwal, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Order

45,025/- . In response, the assessee filed a reply which is reproduced by the Assessing Officer at page 8 & 9 of the assessment order. After considering the submissions, Assessing Officer observed that the transactions carried 2 | P a g e out by the assessee are frequent and multiples of varied amounts and pertaining to payments/received from various parties and also

RANJANA CHATURVEDI,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalito-1(3)(1), Ranjna Chaturvedi Ayakar Bhawan, 9A, T Point, Behind Back Vs. Radhika Vihar, Gate Skjs, Govind Nagar, Phase-Ii, Mathura-281001 (U.P.) Mathura-281004 (U.P.) Pan-Afopc4950N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M.M. Agarwal, Ca Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

45,225/- and since withdrawal of Rs.10,00,000/- is sufficiently covered by the interest free funds, thus, no disallowance should be made. He, therefore, prayed for the deletion of the disallowance so made. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and requested for the confirmation of the disallowance made

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

SOMDUTT BANSAL,GWALIOR vs. INCOME T AX OFFICER, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), notice was issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2018 and duly served on the assessee. In response, assessee filed his return of income for AY 2011-12 declaring total income of Rs.7,17,900/-. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served

ALAUDDIN,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16

section 151 of the Act. The statutory notice dated 31.03.2021 issued u/s. 148 and subsequent notice issued u/s. 142(1) with questionnaire dated 15.11.2021 stood un-responded by the assessee. The assessee, however, submitted his reply dated 20.02.2022 in response to notice u/s. 142(1) dated 24.12.2021, which as per Assessing Officer, was not found satisfactory. Thereafter, show cause notice

ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

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

section 250 of the Act, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed/dismissed assessee’sappeals respectively. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that both the appeals are time-barred by 39-40 days respectively. Delay condonation applications on behalf of Smt. RoshaniRaghuvanshi, staff member of the appellant are on record. The cause for the delay shown, is that

ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

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

section 250 of the Act, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed/dismissed assessee’sappeals respectively. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that both the appeals are time-barred by 39-40 days respectively. Delay condonation applications on behalf of Smt. RoshaniRaghuvanshi, staff member of the appellant are on record. The cause for the delay shown, is that

MARSHAL SECURITY SERVICES,AGRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

45,937/-\n1,20,36,484/-\n2.\nConveyance Expenses\n1,26,809/-\n31,702/-\n3.\nDepreciation Expenses\n2,44,778/-\n61,195/-\n4.\nDress Expenses\n1,99,408/-\n49,852/-\n5.\nEmployee Provident Fund\n81,22,815/-\n20,30,704/-\n6.\nEmployee State Insurance\n15,29,419/-\n3,82,355/-\n7.\nRebate & discount\n2,35,195/-\n58,799/-\n8.\nRent

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

disallowance made of deduction u/s. 80C of the Act of Rs.1,00,000/-\nand direct the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee its claim of\ndeduction u/s. 80C of the Act.\n7. Appeal of the assessee accordingly stands allowed in the above\nterms.\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 16.04.2025.\nSd/-\n(SUNIL KUMAR SINGH)\nJUDICIAL MEMBER

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

section 145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without identifying OR pointing out any specific defect OR inconsistency in the books of account maintained by the appellant in the regular course of business. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that transactions undertaken