MS/ BHOLE BABA MILK FOOD INDUSTRIES,AGRA vs. THE A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(1), AGRA

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

vii) “Uma Shankar Agarwal vs. DCIT”, ITA No. 1831 to 1835/Kol/2015. (viii) “SuvaprasananBhatacharya vs. ACIT”, ITA No. 1303/Kol/2010. (Kol). “SLK Properties vs. ITO”, ITA No. 140/PN/2014. (ix) “ACIT Panjwani” (x) vs. Deepesh M. ITA No.6330/Mum/2012 & 5878/Mum/2012. (ITAT, Mum). (xi) “CIT vs. Shri Chandrashekhran”, ITA No.61/2009 (Kar). (xii)“Sarita Milind Davare vs. ACIT”, ITA No. 2187/Mum/2014. (xiii)“MeherjeeCassinath Holdings

ZILA SAHKARI BANK LTD,JHANSI vs. DCIT -2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

vii) “Uma Shankar Agarwal vs. DCIT”, ITA No. 1831 to 1835/Kol/2015. (viii) “Suvaprasanan Bhatacharya vs. ACIT”, ITA No. 1303/Kol/2010. (Kol). “SLK Properties vs. ITO”, ITA No. 140/PN/2014. (ix) “ACIT Panjwani” (x) vs. Deepesh M. ITA No.6330/Mum/2012 & 5878/Mum/2012. (ITAT, Mum). (xi) “CIT vs. Shri Chandrashekhran”, ITA No.61/2009 (Kar). (xii)“Sarita Milind Davare vs. ACIT”, ITA No. 2187/Mum/2014. (xiii)“Meherjee Cassinath Holdings

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2,, AGRA vs. M/S SAKSHI TAIRI & CHHAYA BATTAD, MORENA

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

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

9- 156 to 158/ ACIT, Circle-2, Smt. Manoj Kumar Saxena & AAAAM5816B 13 Agr/2014 Aayakar Bhawan, City Sharmila Agarwal, CO 12/Agr/14 Center, Gwalior- E.W.S. 44-45, Indrapuram, Agra 160/Agr/2014 474011 A.Y.2005-06 to 2009-10 14- 169/Agr/2014 ACIT, Circle-2, M/s Vandana Jain & Rama AAAAV2973J 17 114 to 116 Aayakar Bhawan, City Bansal 170, Jiwaji Ganj, Morena /Agr/ 2014 Center, Gwalior

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S RAKESH SHIVHARE & NISHA MITTAL, MORENA

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

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

9- 156 to 158/ ACIT, Circle-2, Smt. Manoj Kumar Saxena & AAAAM5816B 13 Agr/2014 Aayakar Bhawan, City Sharmila Agarwal, CO 12/Agr/14 Center, Gwalior- E.W.S. 44-45, Indrapuram, Agra 160/Agr/2014 474011 A.Y.2005-06 to 2009-10 14- 169/Agr/2014 ACIT, Circle-2, M/s Vandana Jain & Rama AAAAV2973J 17 114 to 116 Aayakar Bhawan, City Bansal 170, Jiwaji Ganj, Morena /Agr/ 2014 Center, Gwalior

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S SUNIL KUMAR MITTAL & MAMTA MITTAL, MORENA

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

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

9- 156 to 158/ ACIT, Circle-2, Smt. Manoj Kumar Saxena & AAAAM5816B 13 Agr/2014 Aayakar Bhawan, City Sharmila Agarwal, CO 12/Agr/14 Center, Gwalior- E.W.S. 44-45, Indrapuram, Agra 160/Agr/2014 474011 A.Y.2005-06 to 2009-10 14- 169/Agr/2014 ACIT, Circle-2, M/s Vandana Jain & Rama AAAAV2973J 17 114 to 116 Aayakar Bhawan, City Bansal 170, Jiwaji Ganj, Morena /Agr/ 2014 Center, Gwalior

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S SHYAM SUNDER & MANISH TAORI, MORENA

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

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

9- 156 to 158/ ACIT, Circle-2, Smt. Manoj Kumar Saxena & AAAAM5816B 13 Agr/2014 Aayakar Bhawan, City Sharmila Agarwal, CO 12/Agr/14 Center, Gwalior- E.W.S. 44-45, Indrapuram, Agra 160/Agr/2014 474011 A.Y.2005-06 to 2009-10 14- 169/Agr/2014 ACIT, Circle-2, M/s Vandana Jain & Rama AAAAV2973J 17 114 to 116 Aayakar Bhawan, City Bansal 170, Jiwaji Ganj, Morena /Agr/ 2014 Center, Gwalior

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S VANDANA JAIN & RAMA BANSAL, MORENA

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

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

9- 156 to 158/ ACIT, Circle-2, Smt. Manoj Kumar Saxena & AAAAM5816B 13 Agr/2014 Aayakar Bhawan, City Sharmila Agarwal, CO 12/Agr/14 Center, Gwalior- E.W.S. 44-45, Indrapuram, Agra 160/Agr/2014 474011 A.Y.2005-06 to 2009-10 14- 169/Agr/2014 ACIT, Circle-2, M/s Vandana Jain & Rama AAAAV2973J 17 114 to 116 Aayakar Bhawan, City Bansal 170, Jiwaji Ganj, Morena /Agr/ 2014 Center, Gwalior

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

9) Regarding the applicability of the substituted clause for the impugned assessment years, it is stated that in the case of Bhooratnam & Co. (2-13) 357 ITR 396 (AP) that, "Rule 37BA is a procedural provision dealing with the manner of giving credit for tax deducted at source for the purposes of section 199." It should be appreciated that where

TAHIR KHAN,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowances made in the assessment order. 6. BECAUSE, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the major addition of Rs.97,31,000/- made under section 56(2)(vii) of the 'Act' being on account of deeming fiction cannot be a valid foundation for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the 'Act, as such addition

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

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

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

SMT. GARIMA MEHTA,GWALIOR vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(2), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

disallowed the assessee’s claim u/s 10A on the basis that the 21. assessee did not fulfill the conditions contained in section 10A. It was observed that the business premises of the assessee was not situated either in a Software Technology Park, or in a Special Category Zone, as required by the provisions of section 10A(1) (A); that

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

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

9) Because Ld.CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition Rs 28, 77,400/- in respect of contractor contribution for city development. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the contribution from the contractor was voluntary and with specific consent for incurring the same for the city development. The same was no receipts within

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

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

disallowance of depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against the above said assessment order dated 31.03.2016, learned CIT(A) vide order dated 25.06.2025 affirmed the rejection of accounts and sustained the addition made by AO on account of low profit rate. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal in ITA No.342/Agr/2025 before the ITAT, which has been partly allowed

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

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

disallowance of depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against the above said assessment order dated 31.03.2016, learned CIT(A) vide order dated 25.06.2025 affirmed the rejection of accounts and sustained the addition made by AO on account of low profit rate. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal in ITA No.342/Agr/2025 before the ITAT, which has been partly allowed

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

9. Ld. AR further submitted that if the AO had any doubts about the genuniness of the transactions or regarding the creditworthiness of any of the loan creditor, he could have made direct enquiries by issue of notices/ summon u/s 131 or 133(6) of the Act however, ld. AO has opted the short cut and after receiving the evidences

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)

vii). Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Arora Alloys Ltd. [2015] 60 taxmann.com 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