Search: house property

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S PREM MOTORS PVT LTD., GWALIOR

The appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 327/AGR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Section 2(22)(e)Section 22Section 40A(2)(b)

section (1) as if such house or houses had been let. 4.6.1 A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that where a property is fully let out, its Annual Value is to be taken at ITA 322 & 327/Agra/2015 26

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

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

ITA 216/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 May 2021AY 2011-12

Section 124Section 142Section 153

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

RAJ SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO-3(3), MATHURA

In the result appeal is allowed

ITA 408/AGR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri. Raj Singh, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 3(3), Village- Kharaut Chhata, Mathura Mathura. Pan: Akvpr1777Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 148Section 151

26. Hon’ble Bombay High Court quashed assessment based on notice under section 148 of the Act where proceedings under section 147 was initiated to verify the source of Investment made in purchase of house. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that: “Reassessment Reasons to believe fishing enquiry impugned notice clearly indicates that the AO merely wanted

FIROZABAD SHIKOHABAD,FIROZABAD vs. C.I.T.-II, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 55/AGR/2015[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Feb 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: This Bench, Alongwith The Annexures Mentioned Therein. The Contents Thereof Are As Follows:

Section 12ASection 2(15)

property, to curry out building, engineering, mining and oilier operations, to execute works in connection with the supply of water and electricity, to dispose of sewage and to provide and maintain other services and amenities and generally to do anything necessary or expedient for purposes of such development and for purposes incidental thereto:” 6. The CIT(A) has rejected

SMT. BINA WADHWA,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 147/AGR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 16ASection 23ASection 24Section 34ASection 35

section, cannot be used for the purpose of initiating reassessment proceedings, in my opinion, is not correct.” We do not find any error in the decision of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, grounds Nos. 1.1 to 1.4 are dismissed. 7. Grounds Nos. 2.1 to 2.3 are on merits. The assessee, Smt. Bina Wadhva filed the return of income declaring

JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

ITA 149/AGR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

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)

Section 12ASection 145(3)Section 2(15)

26. On behalf of the revenue ld CIT DR had made elaborate submissions supporting the case of the assessing officer as well as of the Commissioner appeal. The first argument raised by the revenue that the case of the assessee falls within the provision to section 2{15} of the income tax act. Our attention was drawn to the provision

ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA vs. JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

ITA 355/AGR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

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)

Section 12ASection 145(3)Section 2(15)

26. On behalf of the revenue ld CIT DR had made elaborate submissions supporting the case of the assessing officer as well as of the Commissioner appeal. The first argument raised by the revenue that the case of the assessee falls within the provision to section 2{15} of the income tax act. Our attention was drawn to the provision

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

ITA 256/AGR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

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)

Section 12ASection 145(3)Section 2(15)

26. On behalf of the revenue ld CIT DR had made elaborate submissions supporting the case of the assessing officer as well as of the Commissioner appeal. The first argument raised by the revenue that the case of the assessee falls within the provision to section 2{15} of the income tax act. Our attention was drawn to the provision

SAPNA CHAUHAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, ETAWAH

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

ITA 137/AGR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 234B

house was quashed. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court: “Reassessment Reasons to believe fishing enquiry impugned notice clearly indicates that the ld. AO merely wanted to know the details of sources of funds invested by the assessee in purchasing a flat ld. AO had no basis to reasonably entertain a belief that any part of income

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

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 195/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 199(1)Section 205Section 263

property or of the unit holder, or of the shareholder as the case may be, and credit shall be given to him for the amount so ITA Nos. 195 & 196/Agr/2015 18 deducted in production of the certificate furnished under section 203 in the assessment made under this act for the assessment year for which such income is assessed. From

ACIT-CIRCEL-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. MAYANK AGRAWAL, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 336/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

26. We shall deal with the issues raised by Revenue ground wise as under. 27. At the time of hearing, ld. DR of the Revenue submitted that the relevant grounds out of which Ground Nos.1 to 4 are technical and Ground Nos.7 & 11 relating to issue of additional evidences under Rule 46A and section 65B of the Indian Evidence

VISHWAMBHAR DAYAL AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 330/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

26. We shall deal with the issues raised by Revenue ground wise as under. 27. At the time of hearing, ld. DR of the Revenue submitted that the relevant grounds out of which Ground Nos.1 to 4 are technical and Ground Nos.7 & 11 relating to issue of additional evidences under Rule 46A and section 65B of the Indian Evidence

ACIT-CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. PUNEET AGARWAL, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 338/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

26. We shall deal with the issues raised by Revenue ground wise as under. 27. At the time of hearing, ld. DR of the Revenue submitted that the relevant grounds out of which Ground Nos.1 to 4 are technical and Ground Nos.7 & 11 relating to issue of additional evidences under Rule 46A and section 65B of the Indian Evidence

SH. SACHIN ARORA,MATHURA vs. I.T.O.-3(4), MATHURA

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 118/AGR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

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

Housing Pvt. Ltd. 12, 3rd Vs..ACIT-Circle 4(1), FL. Maruti Plaza, Sanjay Place, Agra. Agra. PAN No.AAECM5868P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by Shri Shashank Agarwal, AR. Revenue by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR. Date of Hearing 11.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement 19.12.2017 ORDER PER, BENCH: All these appeals by the assessees involve a common legal issue and therefore, they are being

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

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 116/AGR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

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) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-V, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to verify the investment of Rs. 89,79,185/- out of total addition of Rs.99,56,944/- made u/s 69B of the Act on account of unexplained investment in factory building at Kota

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

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 161/AGR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

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) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-V, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to verify the investment of Rs. 89,79,185/- out of total addition of Rs.99,56,944/- made u/s 69B of the Act on account of unexplained investment in factory building at Kota

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

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 113/AGR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

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) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-V, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to verify the investment of Rs. 89,79,185/- out of total addition of Rs.99,56,944/- made u/s 69B of the Act on account of unexplained investment in factory building at Kota

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

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 114/AGR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

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) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-V, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to verify the investment of Rs. 89,79,185/- out of total addition of Rs.99,56,944/- made u/s 69B of the Act on account of unexplained investment in factory building at Kota

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

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 164/AGR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

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) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-V, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to verify the investment of Rs. 89,79,185/- out of total addition of Rs.99,56,944/- made u/s 69B of the Act on account of unexplained investment in factory building at Kota

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

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 159/AGR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

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) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-V, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to verify the investment of Rs. 89,79,185/- out of total addition of Rs.99,56,944/- made u/s 69B of the Act on account of unexplained investment in factory building at Kota