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

43,77,066\n54,58,13,054\n36,17,16,578\n108,13,44,591\nPurchases\nIt was observed by Ld. AO that the bogus purchases in respect to first\ntwo parties was compiled from the bank statements of the two concerns\nas the assessee did not produce the ledger of these two parties. There\nwas possibility that the quantum

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

43,77,066\n54,58,13,054\n36,17,16,578\n108,13,44,591\nIt was observed by Ld. AO that the bogus purchases in respect to first\ntwo parties was compiled from the bank statements of the two concerns\nas the assessee did not produce the ledger of these two parties. There\nwas possibility that the quantum

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

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

SHYAMA SHYAM INFRADEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AGRA vs. ITO 2(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshshyama Shyam Vs. Ito, Infradevelopers Pvt Ltd, Ward-2(1)(2), Khasra No. 961, Bhahistabad, Agra Sikandra, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aatcs9899R Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Agarwal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R

43,000/- during the year, out of which, the assessee had shown only ₹3,86,89,960/- as gross receipts. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act is issued to the assessee on 30.07.2022. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed its return of income on 23.08.2022 disclosing the same total income of ₹3,48,150/-. During

BHAGWAN SWAROOP,ALIGARH vs. THE I.T.O. WARD 4(1)(1), ALIGARH , ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

1), Aligarh. Mandi, Herduaganj, Aligarh- 202125 (UP). PAN : FHOPS3817K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Naveen Gargh, Advocate Department by Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 16.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 30.07.2025 ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10268901

PAWAN KUMAR CHAUHAN,MAINPURI vs. ITO- WARD 2 (5) , AGRA, AGRA

1. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly and arbitrarily confirmed all the\nadditions made by the Assessing Officer without considering the\nAudited Balance Sheet, purchase deed of properties, proof of life\ninsurance premium and tution fees paid.\n2. Because the total addition in the fixed assets is of Rs. 15,45,867/-\nduly appearing in the audited balance sheet