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

house property, Remuneration and interest from Partnership firm and income from other sources. While framing reassessment order u/s 147 read with Section 143(3) dated 24.10.2019, the Assessing Officer made two additions – firstly, disallowance of Rs.12,15,413/- claimed by the assessee as expenditure against income from other sources by invoking provision of Section 57

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)

house / plot, holding entire allotment money as income is arbitrary and whimsical. The addition may kindly be directed to be deleted. 7. Because the appellant craves leave to alter/ modify grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. At the outset both the parties have mentioned, that the appeal for the assessment year

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)

house / plot, holding entire allotment money as income is arbitrary and whimsical. The addition may kindly be directed to be deleted. 7. Because the appellant craves leave to alter/ modify grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. At the outset both the parties have mentioned, that the appeal for the assessment year

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)

house / plot, holding entire allotment money as income is arbitrary and whimsical. The addition may kindly be directed to be deleted. 7. Because the appellant craves leave to alter/ modify grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. At the outset both the parties have mentioned, that the appeal for the assessment year

SHRI RAJ KUMAR MITTAL,FIROZABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 153A of the Act, by making identical additions on the basis of the report of the Departmental Veluer (“the DVO” in short), in respect of the same property from A.Y 2008-2009 to A.Y 2012-2013. ITA 47 to 52/Agra/2017 3 3.1 The assessee, alongwith his other family members, had purchased a residential house bearing House No.55 at Ganesh

POONAM SAXENA,ALIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 4(1)(5), 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: 2017-18]

house property, business income in the shape of teaching tuitions to students and interest income during the year under consideration. c) The assessee had received rental income of Rs. 57,000/- in cash and Tuition income of Rs.1,94,400/- in cash which was shown in her ITR. While explaining the cash deposit of Rs. 2,95,000/- was made

RADHA GUPTA,KALA MAHAL, AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1)(3), , AGRA

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2017-18

house property of Rs. 1,59,600 and interest income of Rs.6,18,636. The assessee case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The assessee has deposited SBN of Rs. 1,51,04,500 in her bank account maintained in Canara Bank having account number 0322101027093 which was nothing but the sale proceeds of silver bullion disclosed under

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

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

SMT. SARIKA SRIVASTAVA,AGRA vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

57,000/-), whereas the sale consideration received as per the Sale Deed is only Rs. 54,16,600/- (Rs. 22,50,100/- plus Rs. 31.66,500/-). Thus, the value of the 2 plots sold by the Assessee as co-owner u/s 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounts to Rs. 1,16,65,000/-, but the sale consideration received

SHRI ATUL SRIVASTAVA,AGRA vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

57,000/-), whereas the sale consideration received as per the Sale Deed is only Rs. 54,16,600/- (Rs. 22,50,100/- plus Rs. 31.66,500/-). Thus, the value of the 2 plots sold by the Assessee as co-owner u/s 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounts to Rs. 1,16,65,000/-, but the sale consideration received

YOGENDRA SHARMA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ETAH

In the result, the appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Yogendra Sharma, I-4695, 2Nd Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Floor, Gali No. 4-B, Balbir Nagar Ward 3(2), Etah. Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. Pan :Cgkps6492J (Appellant) (Respondent)

57,500/-. Further, the 2 | P a g e Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has declared Rs.4,50,000/- as gross business receipts. Accordingly, he added the difference of Rs.3,07,400/- to the total income of the assessee. Further, he determined the short term capital gains of Rs.2,32,800/- and observed that the capital gain declared

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

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

house tax and water tax were neither paid in that year nor upto the filing of the return. (xv) That, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts by deleting the addition of Rs. 11,65,845/- out of the total addition of Rs.17,57,752/- ,on account of expenses not verified by original biils/vouchers ,without appreciating the fact

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house for Marriage Anniversary) on that date. And the office clerk of the deponent Mr Rahul Sharma mixed-up the appeal documents with other papers in the office as the filing of Income Tax returns was also in the process in the office of deponent. 5. That after some time when the Mr. Ravinder Kumar Mathad Secretary of appellant Authority

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

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

57 of the CIT(A) order. 14. With this background, each of the ground of appeal in ITA No. 330Agra/2025 is being discussed as under:- i). The first ground of appeal relates to ‘mechanical approval’ as granted by the JCIT, (Central), Range, Kanpur u/s 153D and, therefore, the assessment proceedings in this case are void ab-intio and liable

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

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

57 of the CIT(A) order. 14. With this background, each of the ground of appeal in ITA No. 330Agra/2025 is being discussed as under:- i). The first ground of appeal relates to ‘mechanical approval’ as granted by the JCIT, (Central), Range, Kanpur u/s 153D and, therefore, the assessment proceedings in this case are void ab-intio and liable

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

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

57 of the CIT(A) order. 14. With this background, each of the ground of appeal in ITA No. 330Agra/2025 is being discussed as under:- i). The first ground of appeal relates to ‘mechanical approval’ as granted by the JCIT, (Central), Range, Kanpur u/s 153D and, therefore, the assessment proceedings in this case are void ab-intio and liable

RAKESH PORWAL,ACHHALDA vs. ITO, AURAIYA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Lalit Kumar & Dr. M.L. Meena

properties, and hence the A.O. adverse finding on the issue is justified and so the said investment is to be treated as unexplained investment of the appellant. The addition of Rs.9,75,000/- to the appellant’s returned income, is accordingly confirmed.” 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us. He submitted that the appellant

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 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