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

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

disallowed apart from making addition on account\nof unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account

SH RANJEET KUMAR SHARMA ,GWALIOR vs. ITO 2(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with the observations made herein above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalito, 2(1), Shri Ranjeet Kumar Gawalior. Sharma, Vs. Meera Colony, Bihind-477447 Madhya Pradesh. Pan-Bwdps0542K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv. & Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv. Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

disallowing the agricultural income declared by the assesse. Against this order, the assesse preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee, thus, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “Ground No. 1 - On the facts & circumstances of the case the learned

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

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

disallowed apart from making addition on account\nof unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account

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)

disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account

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)

disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account

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)

disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account

SATYAPRAKASH,AGRA vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

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

unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961, which is not justified. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee has already explained the source of cash deposited in bank account but the Learned NFAC did not considered the same and invoke section 69A on Explained source of cash deposit

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]

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the disallowance of deduction claimed at Rs.3

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

unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act as against addition of entire cash deposits made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal on the following grounds : “1. That the assessment order as well as the order of Ld. CIT (A) are both against the facts of the case and are untenable under

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

unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act as against addition of entire cash deposits made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal on the following grounds : “1. That the assessment order as well as the order of Ld. CIT (A) are both against the facts of the case and are untenable under

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

unexplained money and he thus, requested that the addition so made deserves to be deleted. 11. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that assessee has not declared this amount of cash deposit in the return of income filed, therefore, the lower authority has rightly added the same and requested

RAMKISHAN,ALIGARH vs. ITO 4(1)(3) ALIGARH, ALIGARH

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

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer and added to the total income of the assessee. Before on 27.02.2023 fixing the case on 06.03.2023 but again, according to the Assessing Officer, there was no compliance, therefore, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act. 5. Against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

money of the appellant firm which was\ncirculated and routed back to its books of accounts in the form of unsecured loans. So far\nas accommodation entry is concerned, the loan/deposit is given through cheques in lieu of\ncash paid by the beneficiary or by someone on behalf of the beneficiary. Such cash is\ndeposited in the bank account

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]

unexplained unsecured loan (including addition of Rs.2,40,000/- made on account of disallowance of payment of interest) without properly appreciating the facts brought on record by the Appellant during the course of assessment and appellate proceedings. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) (NFAC) has grossly misconceived the provisions of section 68 of the Income

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) &

unexplained investment in factory building at Kota, by not appreciating the fact that investment made by the assessee was not disclosed in the books of accounts and AO made addition on the basis of valuation report of DVO. 4. That the order of the CIT(A)-V, Kanpur being erroneous in law and facts be set aside and order

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) &

unexplained investment in factory building at Kota, by not appreciating the fact that investment made by the assessee was not disclosed in the books of accounts and AO made addition on the basis of valuation report of DVO. 4. That the order of the CIT(A)-V, Kanpur being erroneous in law and facts be set aside and order

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

unexplained investment in factory building at Kota, by not appreciating the\nfact that investment made by the assessee was not disclosed in the books of accounts and\nAO made addition on the basis of valuation report of DVO.\n4.\nThat the order of the CIT(A)-V, Kanpur being erroneous in law and facts be set aside\nand order

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

unexplained investment in factory building at Kota, by not appreciating the\nfact that investment made by the assessee was not disclosed in the books of accounts and\nAO made addition on the basis of valuation report of DVO.\n4.\nThat the order of the CIT(A)-V, Kanpur being erroneous in law and facts be set aside\nand order