M/S UMA GLASS WORKS,AGRA vs. PR.CIT.-1, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

147 of the Act determining the income of the assessee by making an addition of Rs.19,90,13,470/-. The said Rs.19,90,13,469/- represents the difference in opening stock, purchases, sales, closing stock and the net profit as shown by the assessee in its return of income and as per the stock summary taken from hard-disk impounded

M/S UMA GLASS WORKS ,FIROZABAD vs. PR.CIT.-1, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

147 of the Act determining the income of the assessee by making an addition of Rs.19,90,13,470/-. The said Rs.19,90,13,469/- represents the difference in opening stock, purchases, sales, closing stock and the net profit as shown by the assessee in its return of income and as per the stock summary taken from hard-disk impounded

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2019-20 is\nallowed and appeals filed by the Revenue in AYs 2021-22, 2022-23 and\n2023-24 are dismissed

reassessment, after recording Md. Irfan's statement. However, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) initiated revision proceedings u/s 263, believing the AO had not conducted proper inquiries. The PCIT set aside the assessment order, directing fresh inquiries.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 by merely substituting his own opinion for that

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2019-20 is\nallowed and appeals filed by the Revenue in AYs 2021-22, 2022-23 and\n2023-24 are dismissed

reassessment notice based on alleged bogus purchases from Md. Irfan. The Assessing Officer (AO) initially accepted the purchases as genuine after investigations, but the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) initiated revision proceedings u/s 263, viewing the AO's assessment as erroneous and prejudicial.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the PCIT had erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had conducted

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)

147 and the same enquiry have been referred in the case of the Md. Irfan. Though, it is very established that, this is not a case of lack of enquiry, therefore it is mere a change of opinion of the Ld. PCIT in invoking the provisions of section 263 read with Explanation 2 clause (a) and since adequate

HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, 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)

147 and the same enquiry have been referred in the case of the Md. Irfan. Though, it is very established that, this is not a case of lack of enquiry, therefore it is mere a change of opinion of the Ld. PCIT in invoking the provisions of section 263 read with Explanation 2 clause (a) and since adequate

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)

147 and the same enquiry have been referred in the case of the Md. Irfan. Though, it is very established that, this is not a case of lack of enquiry, therefore it is mere a change of opinion of the Ld. PCIT in invoking the provisions of section 263 read with Explanation 2 clause (a) and since adequate

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

revised by Ld. AO as under: -\nNo.\nAY\nGP Rate as\nshown by\nthe\nassessee\nTotal\nPurchases\n(in crores)\nBogus\nPurchases\n(in Crores)\nRevised\nGP\nRate\n1.\n2013-14\n6.19%\n9122.34\n91.22*\n14.83%\n2.\n2014-15\n8.82%\n1066.13\n106.61\n17.97%\n3.\n2015-16\n7.49%\n1128.66\n112.86\n16.24%\n4.\n2016-17\n8.63%\n1164.21\n116.42\n17.65%\n5.\n2017-18\n9.31

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

revised by Ld. AO as under: -\nNo.\nAY\nGP Rate as\nshown by\nthe\nassessee\nTotal\nPurchases\n(in crores)\nBogus\nPurchases\n(in Crores)\nRevised\nGP\nRate\n1.\n2013-14\n6.19%\n9122.34\n91.22*\n14.83%\n2.\n2014-15\n8.82%\n1066.13\n106.61\n17.97%\n3.\n2015-16\n7.49%\n1128.66\n112.86\n16.24%\n4.\n2016-17\n8.63%\n1164.21\n116.42\n17.65%\n5.\n2017-18\n9.31