SATISH PRAKASH AGARWAL,AGRA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17

46,265/- out of the total disallowance of Rs. 34,38,533/ made by the Ld. Assessing Officer even when the entire amount of interest expense on unsecured loans was allowable as deduction under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA vs. ALNOOR EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

disallowance of interest paid to related parties by applying the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. ITA Nos. 273 & 274/AGR/2024 Alnoor Exports 10. We have heard the ld DR and perused the materials available on record. The ld AO noticed that Assessee had paid interest to the related parties mentioned under Section

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

SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT JAMNER,GUNA vs. ITO, GUNA

Appeal is allowed

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

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P deduction claim amounting to 2 ITA No. 48/Agr./2023 Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Jamner Rs.26,46

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

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 had also submitted that those parties were not having taxable Sumit

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

46,35,564/- against which the application of income for charitable purposes was Rs. 2,27,32,532 ( Rs. 2,08,81,587/- towards running expenses and Rs. 18,50,945/- as addition to fixed assets). Thus, there was a surplus of Rs. 19,03,032/- which was stated to be below the maximum permissible limit of 15 percent

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

46,86,589/- followed by various other statutory deduction. Learned PCIT thereafter issued his section 263 show-cause notice dated 04.05.2018 inter alia alleging that not only the above statutory deductions of depreciation, directors’ salary etc. had been wrongly allowed after rejecting the books and estimation of net profits but also section 57(3) interest deduction against interest income from

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

section 69A of the Act.” 4. Ground of appeal No.2 is with respect to the disallowance of Rs.1,12,596/- made out of interest expenses claimed by the assessee. 5. The AO observed that the assessee has withdrawn Rs.10,00,000/- for construction of house which was for personal purpose and had paid interest on bank borrowing of Rs.4

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

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 appeal before learned CIT(A), who confirmed the penalty and dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 4. This second appeal has been

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]

46,879 was wrongly made u/s 69A on account of alleged unexplained cash deposit in bank account. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the said addition 5. Because the tax has been wrongly charges u/s 115BBE of the act. 6. Because the addition was wrongly made u/s 28 by disallowing expenses under business head amounting

DY C.I.T.-3, MATHURA vs. M/S KOSHDA BUILDCON PVT. LTD., MATHURA

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed for

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

section 32. Thus, under the facts and circumstances of this case, no addition in respect of these expenses totaling Rs. 2, 10,05,436/- can be legally made. • The remaining disallowed expenses total Rs. 3,07,55,984/- , out of which Rs.2,81,61,680/- are categorized under the head of Finance Charges while the rest are marketing expenses

MADHURI JAISWAL,GWALIOR, MADHYA PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT 3(1), GWL, GWALIOR, MADHYAPRADESH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

section 68 cannot be applied in respect of income from a source which has already been taxed which would amount to double taxation, Gross Receipt from business has been accepted by assessing officer during the course of assessment, never rejected the books of account as well as no any expenses were disallowed of PL. account whereas case was selected

SAGAR DWELLINGS P LTD,NEAR SUN TEMPLE GWALIOR vs. ACIT, FACELESS

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

46,66,985/- from M/s. Jai Baba Gurudev Traders and made payment through bank account. The freight was not to be paid by assessee but was to be borne by the seller as it was a local purchase. (v). Assessee further submitted before the Assessing Officer that no such addition was made during the assessment proceedings concluded

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

VIMAL KUMAR,MAINPURI vs. INCOEM TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(4), MAINPURI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshvimal Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ramnagar, Halpur, Ward-4(2)(2), Agra, Up Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Assessee By : Shri Harsh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17/03/2026

disallowance of purchases in the sum of Rs 77,79,000. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of commission agency (Kaccha Arahtiya) dealing in food grains, paddy, vegetables and oil seeds and carrying on business in a proprietorship firm under the name

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

46-49. At this juncture, ld.AR drew our attention\nto the reply filed by the assessee on 14.03.2024 wherein besides re-submitting\nthe above stated details, it was further submitted that in many cases, the\namounts were repaid during the year itself through banking channel. Ld. AR also\nsubmitted that out of the total loans

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