ANKITA PALIWAL,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALIGARH

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

disallowed claim, on ground that assessee had not filed Form No. 67 along with return Assessee filed Form No. 67 before Commissioner (Appeals) Commissioner (Appeals) held that since assessee had failed to file Form No. 67 within due date specified for filing return under section 139(1

MAHIM PATRAN P. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT -2, AGRA

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

67 (iii). Haryana Paper Distributors (P) Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT(2018) 95 taxmann.com 152 (Gujrat) (iv). CIT(E) v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority dt. 26.03.2019(Bom) 412 ITR 521. 9. Further, no oral arguments were addressed by the ld. AR. However, in the written submissions, it was submitted as under : (2) Section 263 can be invoked if both the following twin

MONIKA RATHORE,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, MORENA

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2023-24

disallowed claim, on ground that assessee had not filed Form No. 67 along with return Assessee filed Form No. 67 before Commissioner (Appeals) Commissioner (Appeals) held that since assessee had failed to file Form No. 67 within due date specified for filing return under section 139(1

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

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

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

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

Section 10(23C) on the requirement that a college must maintain the status- quo, as it were, in regard to its knowledge based infrastructure. Nor for that matter is an educational institution prohibited from upgrading its infrastructure on educational facilities save on the pain of losing the benefit of the exemption under Section 10(23C). Imposing such a condition which

TOMAR AND BROTHERS,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(5), ETAWAH

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

67,680/-. Learned CIT(Appeals), however, restricted the same to 7.5% of the expenses resulting in disallowance being restricted to Rs.21,12,576/-. 2 | P a g e 4. The assessee is aggrieved by the same and his contention is that if this quantum of disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is considered, it would result in its profit

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

67,84,622/- d. Disallowance of other expenses:- 12,76,916/- 5. The ld CIT(A) granted partial relief to the assessee in the first round. The assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Tribunal in the first round restored the matter back to the file of the ld CIT(A). In the second round of proceedings, the assessee furnished

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. ADITYA PANDEY, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

67,207/- imposed by Assessing Officer, vide penalty order dated 19.09.2024 passed u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act respectively. 2. Since, the penalty order passed u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act is consequential to the assessment order, both these appeals are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. ADITY PANDEY, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

67,207/- imposed by Assessing Officer, vide penalty order dated 19.09.2024 passed u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act respectively. 2. Since, the penalty order passed u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act is consequential to the assessment order, both these appeals are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts

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

1,05,30,800 shown as total cash withdrawals should not be treated as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Act. 6. The assessee furnished a detailed explanation in response to the 2nd show cause notice of the Learned AO. The Learned AO noted that assessee furnished the list of farmers from whom the assessee has made 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)

67 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2015] 370 ITR 732 (Punjab &Haryana)[21-07-2014] Section 69C, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Statements made before other authorities, relevance of) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee- company was engaged in business of manufacturing of non- alloys steel ingots, trading in scrap, etc. - Subsequent to assessment, Commissioner invoked jurisdiction

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)

67 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2015] 370 ITR 732 (Punjab &Haryana)[21-07-2014] Section 69C, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Statements made before other authorities, relevance of) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee- company was engaged in business of manufacturing of non- alloys steel ingots, trading in scrap, etc. - Subsequent to assessment, Commissioner invoked jurisdiction

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)

67 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2015] 370 ITR 732 (Punjab &Haryana)[21-07-2014] Section 69C, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Statements made before other authorities, relevance of) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee- company was engaged in business of manufacturing of non- alloys steel ingots, trading in scrap, etc. - Subsequent to assessment, Commissioner invoked jurisdiction

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,MAINPURI vs. ITO-2(5), MAINPURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed with the observation as above

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

disallowed partly rejecting the independent evidence produced merely only change of opinion is illegal and arbitrary. 6. That mere non-acceptance of explanation given by assessee which has been partly accepted does not tentamount that the assesee has not been able substantiate his explanation and penalty imposed at Rs. 354013/- is illegal and arbitrary. 7. The appellant craves

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

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 2012-13 457 – 463 Month wise detail of Sales to various parties 464 – 466 List of Trade Receivables in excess of Rs. 1