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

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

8%. Accordingly, the Id AO held that the market rate of interest should be considered only at 4% for all the related parties and proceeded to disallow a sum of Rs. 5,04,124 as being excessive interest paid in terms of 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)

8%. Accordingly, the ld AO held that the market rate of interest should be considered only at 4% for all the related parties and proceeded to disallow a sum of Rs. 5,04,124 as being excessive interest paid in terms of Section

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

section.” 8. Both the authorities below had noted several expenses incurred by the assessee to be without TDS and in absence of any cooperation from the assessee in this regard, disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),AGRA, AGRA vs. EMCO EXPORTS, AGRA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

section 195 of the Act. Learned DR, therefore, submits that the Assessing Officer was right in disallowing the said payment and prayed to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A), which is contrary to the Apex Court decision in Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. (supra). 8

SH. SHOBHA RAM SHARMA,MATHURA vs. DCIT.-3, MATHURA

Appeal is partly allowed in very terms

8 lakhs out of the Rs. 25,18,014/- disallowed.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)" ], "issues": "Whether the disallowance

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)

8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The original return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 was filed by the assessee company on 13-10-2017 declaring total income of Rs 14,98,32,770/-. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of plastic pipes and fittings and containers

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)

8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The original return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 was filed by the assessee company on 13-10-2017 declaring total income of Rs 14,98,32,770/-. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of plastic pipes and fittings and containers

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)

8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The original return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 was filed by the assessee company on 13-10-2017 declaring total income of Rs 14,98,32,770/-. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of plastic pipes and fittings and containers

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

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. 8. That the AO has erred on facts and in law while making the addition by disallowing

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

8. That lastly, we would like to contend that this being a debatable issue, the disallowance made by CPC was uncalled as the same cannot be termed as an adjustment in terms of section

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

8. That lastly, we would like to contend that this being a debatable issue, the disallowance made by CPC was uncalled as the same cannot be termed as an adjustment in terms of section

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

PRAMOD KUMAR DUBEY,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,1(3), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

disallowance of rebate by the CPC appears to be a result of a programming change in the utility logic post- January 2025 and is not supported by any statutory amendment or binding judicial precedent. The rejection of the assessee's claim under section 87A on technical grounds without affording a prior opportunity is also violative of the proviso to section

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

8 | P a g e disallowed as per provisions of the Act. Thus, there was no error on the part of the assessee charging 12% interest on the capital invested in the partnership firm, Freedom Shoes LLP. It was submitted that disallowance of Rs.10,06,265/- was double addition and the same ought to have been deleted

SURBHI ANAND,SOUTH DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2023-24] Surbhi Anand, Acit, C-155, Basement, Lajpat Circle-1(1)(1), Nagar-2, South Delhi, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Sanjay Place, Delhi-110024 Agra, Uttar Pradesh-282002 Pan-Acypa6580B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sahib P. Satsangi, Ca Respondent By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 Order, Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

8% Taxable Gol Bond. The disallowance made is liable to be 3. Because in any view of the case, the appellant having declared the interest on accrual basis in the returns filed for the earlier years deposited his tax liability on such interest income in different Assessment Years whose assessments have been completed under section

RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA,ETAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(1),, ETAH

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

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

section 115BBE, he submitted that the same is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No.2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024. He relied upon the same. 8. With regard to ground No.5, he brought to our notice page 8 of the paper

GIRDHARI LAL KEDAR NATH SINGHAL,AGRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahmangirdhari Lal Kedar Nath Singhal, Vs. Ito 1 (1)(1), Ff – 1, Bhagwati Complex, Agra. M.G. Road, Opp. Shah Cinema, Agra – 282 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aacfg5458N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Naveen Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Order : 03.09.2025

section 44AD of the Act i.e. net profit to tax @ 8% of the gross receipt. Accordingly, notices were issued to the assessee asking for relevant information. After considering the submissions of the assessee, AO has not found any variance in the gross receipt declared by the assessee, in order to verify the major expenditures claimed by the assessee. The assessee

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

disallowance is of Rs.56,407/- being speculation loss. Learned counsel relied upon the following judgments : 1 Hon’ble Bombay High Court – CIT v/s Jet Airways (I) Ltd in IT Appeal Nos 1526 of 2008 & 1714 of 2009 2. Hon’ble Delhi High Court – Pr. CIT v/s Sunlight Tour & Travels Pvt Ltd in ITA No 222/2022 3. Hon’ble Agra ITAT