VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house\nproperty of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account\nof unexplained money u/s 69A

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

section 143(3) of the LT. Act as confirmed by CIT (A) vide Order dt. 21.02.2022 confirming the impugned addition of Rs 71,44,045/-made on merely assumptions, presumptions, surmises & conjectures is wrong, illegal and bad in law. 3.1 Because in any view, the impugned addition as confirmed

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house\nproperty of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account\nof unexplained money u/s 69A

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house\nproperty of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account\nof unexplained money u/s 69A

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

disallowance of Rs.115,296 towards interest ignoring that appellate had sufficient interest free funds for withdrawal of Rs.10,00,000. 3. Because in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned appellate authority has erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,90,000 towards cash deposited in saving bank account during demonetization period under section 69A

SATYAPRAKASH,AGRA vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15

section 69A on Explained source of cash deposit. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs. 2697990/- out of Rs. 14,15,000/- cash deposit into bank out of the sale proceeds in spite of that transaction has recorded in books

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

section 132A. Similar is the\ndecision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs.\nContinental Warehousing Corporation [2015; 374 ITR 645] which has\nbeen followed in subsequent decision in CIT V/s Gurinder Singh Bawa\n(79 Taxmann.com 398 05/10/2015) which deals with a situation where\nin the original return of income was processed

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

section 132A. Similar is the\ndecision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs.\nContinental Warehousing Corporation [2015; 374 ITR 645] which has\nbeen followed in subsequent decision in CIT V/s Gurinder Singh Bawa\n(79 Taxmann.com 398 05/10/2015) which deals with a situation where\nin the original return of income was processed

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]

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 to Rs 3,11,134.” 3. Brief facts

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A

MANISH KUMAR CHATURVEDI,JHANSI vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(2), JHANSI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Manish Kumar Chaturvedi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1882, Shivaji Nagar, Jhansic Ward-2(3)(2), 284001 Jhansi 284 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Akkpc5294Q Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/02/2025

section 270A(2) (b) and 271F of the Act is unwarranted. Manish Kumar Chaturvedi 9. That the appellate order dated 01.12.2023 passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is against the law and facts of the appellant's case.” 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issuance of notice of hearing. Hence we proceed to dispose of this appeal

RAVINDER SINGH 402SAI DEEP APARTMENT 26-RAM BAGH COLONY SHINDE KI CHAWNI LASHKAR GWALIOR ,GAWALIR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2) GWALIOR AAYKAR BHAWAN CITY CENTRE GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals

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

section 148 of the Act fell between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, which was condoned by Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 10.01.2022 [2022] 134 taxmann.com 307(SC). The return was accordingly treated as valid by the first appellate authority. This apart, learned CIT(Appeals) also verified the bank statement and observed that the cash deposit was not made

RAVINDER SINGH 402 SAI DEEP APARTMENT 29 RAM BAGH COLONY SHINDE KI CHAWNI LASHKAR GWALIOR,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2) GWALIOR AAYKAR BHAWAN CITY CENTRE GWALIOR , GWALIOR

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals

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

section 148 of the Act fell between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, which was condoned by Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 10.01.2022 [2022] 134 taxmann.com 307(SC). The return was accordingly treated as valid by the first appellate authority. This apart, learned CIT(Appeals) also verified the bank statement and observed that the cash deposit was not made

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

section 132A. Similar is the\ndecision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs.\nContinental Warehousing Corporation [2015; 374 ITR 645] which has\nbeen followed in subsequent decision in CIT V/s Gurinder Singh Bawa\n(79 Taxmann.com 398 05/10/2015) which deals with a situation where\nin the original return of income was processed

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 132A. Similar is the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation [2015; 374 ITR 645] which has been followed in subsequent decision in CIT V/s Gurinder Singh Bawa (79 Taxmann.com 398 05/10/2015) which deals with a situation where in the original return of income was processed

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

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 132A. Similar is the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation [2015; 374 ITR 645] which has been followed in subsequent decision in CIT V/s Gurinder Singh Bawa (79 Taxmann.com 398 05/10/2015) which deals with a situation where in the original return of income was processed