SOURABH KUMAR SONI,ASHOKNAGAR (M.P) vs. ITO - ASHOKNAGAR, ASHOKNAGAR

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

68 and hence Section 115BBE cannot be applied. I order accordingly. 6.3 Proceeding further, the Assessing Officer has made two additions to the income of the assessee in the assessment framed u/s 144, firstly Rs.1,80,000/- on account of cash deposits

LOKENDRA KUMAR GAUTAM,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD, 1(3)(2), MATHURA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

deposit as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act, and made addition of Rs.1,24,00,000/- u/s. 68

MADHURI JAISWAL,GWALIOR, MADHYA PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT 3(1), GWL, GWALIOR, MADHYAPRADESH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

deposited a consultation fee for particular medical section at cash counter of hospital and issue him receipt of fee. If the patient is to be admitted in the hospital added to the total income of assessee under section 68

SH MANOJ KUMAR VERMA,MAINPURI vs. ITO WARD-4(2)(4), MAINPURI

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

cash deposits are explained.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "69A", "115BBE", "68" ], "issues": "Whether cash deposits made during the demonetization

SH SANJAY BANSAL ,MORENA vs. A.C.I.T (CENTRAL), GWALIOR

In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed

Bench: learned CIT(Appeals) who has very exhaustively passed the impugned order in 60 pages and considered all the submissions of the assessee in the tabulated form and otherwise, which need not to be repeated again for the sake of brevity. However, learned CIT(Appeals) partly allowed assessee's appeal confirming the addition only to the extent of Rs.71,44,045/- as against addition of Rs.91,06,669/-. 4. Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds : "1.Because in any view, th

cash deposit of Rs.57,00,000/- is treated as unexplained within the meaning of section 69 of the Act. Accordingly, addition made by the Ld. A.O. is hereby confirmed to this extent. Disallowance under the provisions of section 43A(3) of the Act 4.1.3 The appellant has furnished copy of purchase bills (page no. 68

MR. PRADEEP KUMAR,ALIGARH vs. ITO., WARD-4(2)(5), MAINPURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

section 68 of the Act, and no addition is warranted on merits. Further, I have observed that the Assessing Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction as the case was selected for framing limited scrutiny on the ground of cash deposited

ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DCIT 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Anil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dy. Cit, 44, R. S. Residency, Circle-2(1)(1), Dayal Bagh, Agra, Up Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aampa3335J Assessee By : Shri Rajni Kant Verma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

cash deposits be not treated as unexplained income under Section 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee

B K KESHARWANI, AGRA vs. MADHUR MITTAL, AGRA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ld Cit(A), Who Partly Allowed

cash deposits with the dates of receipt from the respective parties. 5.4 Moreover, the appellant has fulfilled the requirements under Section 68

RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA,ETAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(1),, ETAH

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

section 68 of the Act on account of cash deposit during the demonetization period without due consideration of the fact

BIPIN BABU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.149/Agr/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Bipin Babu Agarwal Dcit / Acit बनाम/ 16, Kamla Vihar Colony Central Circle Vs. Masani, Mathura 281 001 Agra "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpa-0864-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri M. M. Agrawal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kanpur-4 [Cit(A)] Dated 28-06-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 30-09-2021. Having Heard Vehement Arguments Of Both The Sides & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. During The Year, The Assessee Being Resident Individual Carried Out Business Activities In Proprietorship Concern Namely M/S Parshant Silver Handicrafts. Assessment Proceedings 2.1 The Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Scrutinized Pursuant To Search Action On R.S. Bullion & Jewellers Group Of Cases At Mathura

section 145(3) of IT Act and estimating NP by taking best NP rate of appellant himself in last 7 years which was @0.38% of AY 2016-17. Another addition of Rs. 5,10,00,000/- was made u/s 68 of IT Act since the source of cash deposited

VERMA SERVICE STATION,FIROZABAD vs. ACIT, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

cash deposits in the account, AO is correct in law treating the same as undisclosed income of the assessee under section 68

SH RANJAN KUMAR ARORA,FARRUKHABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE 4(2)(1), FARRUKHABAD

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Ranjan Kumar Arora, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 5/30, Nehru Road, Circle-4(2)(1), Farrukhabad, Up- 2096625 Farrukhabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aakpa0524D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2025

deposited in the bank account was treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act in the hands

SUBHASH CHAND SHARMA,AGRA vs. ITO-2(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Mittha Lal Meenaasst. Year : 2011-12

section 133(6) of theact. From the Bank statement, the AO found that total deposit of Rs.71,69,424/- were made in assessee PNB saving Bank account which include the cash deposit of Rs.56,70,900/- as reflected in AIR information as noted in the assessment order.According, the AO computed the income of assessee at Rs.33,57,509/- treating

HARSH SALUJA,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

deposits in the bank ought not to be treated as unexplained cash in the hands of the assessee under the provisions of the u/s 68 of the Act. The ld. DR has further argued that alternatively, if the addition is not to be sustained u/s 68 of the Act, the same be upheld by invoking the provisions of section

PUSHPA,MATHURA vs. ITO-1(2)(3), MATHURA

In the result,both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri. Pushpendra Singh. Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(2)(3), M-22, Phase-I, Mahavidhya Colony. Agra. Mathura. Pan: Dldps6755P (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Pushpa Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(2)(3), M-22, Phase-I, Mahavidhya Colony. Agra. Mathura. Pan: Bcopd0484L (Appellant) (Respondent)

cash deposits. Now, whether this information can be said to constitute material which could lead to such a belief? ; In BirBahadur Singh Sijwali v. ITO [2015] 53 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) taxmann.com 366/68 SOT 197 (URO) (Delhi - Trib.), it has been held that where the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 on the ground that there

RATNESH KUMAR JAIN,SHIVPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ASHOK NAGAR, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

68,53,128/-, out of which cash deposits were to the tune\nof Rs.1,28,13,500/-. The assessee was asked by the Assessing Officer to\nexplain the source of the cash deposits, but no reply was furnished by\nthe assessee. Assessing Officer issued fresh show cause notice dated\n15.03.2022 along with draft assessment order proposing to make\naddition

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 68 w.e.f AY 2013-14. i. The credit entries in the relevant bank statement of the share applicant company were followed backwards and few bank statement of companies from which funds were received by the share applicant company were examined. No related cash deposits

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 68 w.e.f AY 2013-14. i. The credit entries in the relevant bank statement of the share applicant company were followed backwards and few bank statement of companies from which funds were received by the share applicant company were examined. No related cash deposits