VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1) , GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

1 unit located at Kashipur. The learned AO in the course of quantum assessment proceedings observed that in respect of scrap sale, interest received, exchange difference, business support services, amounts written back and miscellaneous income, the assessee would not be entitled for deduction under section 80IC of the Act as it cannot be construed as profits derived from the eligible

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

1 unit located at Kashipur. The learned AO in the course of quantum assessment proceedings observed that in respect of scrap sale, interest received, exchange difference, business support services, amounts written back and miscellaneous income, the assessee would not be entitled for deduction under section 80IC of the Act as it cannot be construed as profits derived from the eligible

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

1 unit located at Kashipur. The learned AO in the course of quantum assessment proceedings observed that in respect of scrap sale, interest received, exchange difference, business support services, amounts written back and miscellaneous income, the assessee would not be entitled for deduction under section 80IC of the Act as it cannot be construed as profits derived from the eligible

JHASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. DY. C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, AGRA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

disallowance of the exemption claimed under section 11 and 13 of the Act as the activities of the assessee was in the nature of trade, commerce or business in nature. In response to that the assessee filed the reply of 7th August 2013 and in the reply it was mentioned as under. “ Before replying to specific queries, the assessee

ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA vs. JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

disallowance of the exemption claimed under section 11 and 13 of the Act as the activities of the assessee was in the nature of trade, commerce or business in nature. In response to that the assessee filed the reply of 7th August 2013 and in the reply it was mentioned as under. “ Before replying to specific queries, the assessee

JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

disallowance of the exemption claimed under section 11 and 13 of the Act as the activities of the assessee was in the nature of trade, commerce or business in nature. In response to that the assessee filed the reply of 7th August 2013 and in the reply it was mentioned as under. “ Before replying to specific queries, the assessee

AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AGRA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowed / added such expenditure / receipts in the assessee's income and Expenditure Account. Since the exemption to the assessee (appellant) u/s 11 has been denied by the AO in view of proviso to section 2(15) read with section 13(8), therefore the assessee's income has been assessed under the head income from Business or Profession' and such total

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)

65,07,560/- had he applied his mind. The addition of Rs.15,04,35,000/- made by the AO in the instant case is completely out of the scene in the final assessed income shows volumes. 17.2 Even the factual situation is much worse than the facts decided by the Tribunal in the case of Sanjay Duggal (supra). In that

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)

65,07,560/- had he applied his mind. The addition of Rs.15,04,35,000/- made by the AO in the instant case is completely out of the scene in the final assessed income shows volumes. 17.2 Even the factual situation is much worse than the facts decided by the Tribunal in the case of Sanjay Duggal (supra). In that

KAMLA ASSOCIATES,SHEOPUR vs. ACIT-3(1), GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshkamla Associates, Vs. Acit, Pali Road, Sheopur, Circle-3(1), Mp Gwalior Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaffk5366A Assessee By : Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17/03/2026

section 68 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained cash credits in respect of advances received against sale of tractors. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a dealer of tractors and its spare parts which are Kamla Associates purchased by agriculturists and farmers. The return of income

KOTHIWAL ICE AND COLD STORAGE .P.LTD,ETAH vs. NFAC , NEW DELHI

Appeals is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Nfac, Kothiwal Ice & Storage Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Sadabad Road, Jaleshar, Etah, Uttar Pradesh Pan :Aacck1353P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2025 Order

1) dated 20/10/2023 is bad in law and on facts and deserves to be quashed. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the impugned addition of Rs. 65,79,902/- made by the AO U/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 3. That Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the judicial pronouncements of various

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

disallowable expenditure u/s 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD of the 1.T. Act in mechanical, summary & brief manner without appreciating & brushing aside the Nature of transaction in the peculiar facts & circumstances, and the evidence furnished. The addition made on merely assumptions, presumptions, surmises & unwarranted arbitrary, highly unjust, conjectures and grossly capricious, wrong, illegal, bad in facts & law. 5.2 Because

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)

1-12). 5. On the first issue, the Tribunal has held (page 10, para 6 of the order) as follows: “We hold that the impugned payments of Rs. 86,65,626/- on account of labour and transportation was not made to contractors and therefore provision of section 194C of the Act were not violated by the assessee. There was therefore

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

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 of various products 452 – 456 Copy of Annual VAT Return filed for the Financial Year

VERMA SERVICE STATION,FIROZABAD vs. ACIT, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

disallowed interest of Rs.2,85,984/- and Rs.1,83,248/- for which, it was stated that the authorized representative of the assessee conceded. I.T.A No. 212/Agra/2018 3 3. In the first round of appeal, ITAT, Agra Bench, Agra Vide ITA No. 189/Agra/2011 dated 12.08.2015 has restored the matter back to AO holding that since the additions are based

M/S BHOLE BABA MILK FOOD INDUSTRIES DHOLPUR,AGRA vs. J.C.I.T., RANGE -4, AGRA

In the result appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

1,51,56.161.00 I.T.A No. 242/Agra/2014 12 Rs>342,38,69,982.00 .... .... - (C) Net Profit of Dholpur undertaking Rs.4,65,66,368.00 Net Profit on trading goods of Dholpur unit = C x A B = 45,85,07,676.00x4,65,66,368.00 = Rs. 62,35,93 7/- 342,38,69,982.00" 5.3 The above remand report

ACIT CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. SHARMA & ASSOCIATES FIRETECH PVT LTD, GWALIOR

In the result, we do not find any error as the assessee has failed to establish the

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2010-11

65 para 6.3.4 of CIT(A)} order) 6. In respect to deletion ofRs.25,15,775/-. By the Ld. CIT(A),. DR for the Revenue had submitted that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is nonspeaking and cryptic order, as the ld. CIT(A) had failed to deal with the submissions of the 6 CO No.08/Agr/2017

ANUPAM MITTAL,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the additions amounting to Rs. 71,08,000/- made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained unsecured loan (including addition of Rs.2,40,000/- made on account of disallowance of payment of interest) without properly appreciating