ARJUN TRADING CO. PVT. LTD.,FIROZABAD vs. I.T.O.-5(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaarjun Trading Company Private Vs..Ito-5,(1), Ltd. A-4, Ganesh Nagar, Firozabad. Firozabad. Panno.Aadca7230J (Assessee) (Revenue)

section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that the unexplained cash credits amounting to Rs. 8,100

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Anand Kumar Jain Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 30/41, Chhipitola Ward-1 (1)(1), Agra Agra Pan :Aarpj3189L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gaurav Goyal , Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 Order

100 during the period 01.10.2016 to 28.10.2016, it was noticed that there was no sales up to 30.09.2016 either in cash or otherwise and even no sales after 28.10.2016. Therefore, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the assessee has recorded bogus sales in order to deposit the undisclosed cash after declaration of demonetization on 08.11.2016. He discussed elaborately

K P ENTERPRISES,ETAWAH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) the Act. In the penalty order, the AO observed that the assessee firm was in the business of civil contracts and working for Government department during the period relevant to the AY 2014-15 and it filed its return of income on 26.11.2014 for the year under consideration declaring total income at Rs.41

SHARDA OIL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. JURISDICTIONAL OFFICER,CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA

In the result all the appeals filed by the

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sharda Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Circle-2(1)(1), 17, Tundla Road, Nunhai Agrau.P. Agrau.P. Pan: Aaecs1396L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Prem Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Dcit/Acit, Circle-1(1) Kanwal Complex, B-32, A.G. Office Gwalior M.P. Road, Gwalior M.P. 474001 Pan: Aabcp2035Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Karam Udyog Vs. Jo Circle - 1(1)(1) 9, Gailana Road Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Abbfk0897L (Appellant) (Respondent)

100 Taxmann.Com 244 In view of the dichotomy en-controversies existing 2014 we amendment came above which as per notes on clauses as per the finance act, starts with EXPLANATION V —''FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS" IT IS CLARIFICATORY CURATIVE INTENDED TO SET AT REST THE CONTROVERSY IT IS DOES NOT BRING FORTH ANY SUBSTANTIVE LAW DOES NOT IMPOSE

PREM MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,GWALIOR vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER ,DCIT/ACIT,CIRCLE1(1), GWALIOR

In the result all the appeals filed by the

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sharda Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Circle-2(1)(1), 17, Tundla Road, Nunhai Agrau.P. Agrau.P. Pan: Aaecs1396L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Prem Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Dcit/Acit, Circle-1(1) Kanwal Complex, B-32, A.G. Office Gwalior M.P. Road, Gwalior M.P. 474001 Pan: Aabcp2035Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Karam Udyog Vs. Jo Circle - 1(1)(1) 9, Gailana Road Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Abbfk0897L (Appellant) (Respondent)

100 Taxmann.Com 244 In view of the dichotomy en-controversies existing 2014 we amendment came above which as per notes on clauses as per the finance act, starts with EXPLANATION V —''FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS" IT IS CLARIFICATORY CURATIVE INTENDED TO SET AT REST THE CONTROVERSY IT IS DOES NOT BRING FORTH ANY SUBSTANTIVE LAW DOES NOT IMPOSE

KARAM UDHOG,AGRA vs. J.A.O., DY. CIT.., CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result all the appeals filed by the

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sharda Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Circle-2(1)(1), 17, Tundla Road, Nunhai Agrau.P. Agrau.P. Pan: Aaecs1396L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Prem Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Dcit/Acit, Circle-1(1) Kanwal Complex, B-32, A.G. Office Gwalior M.P. Road, Gwalior M.P. 474001 Pan: Aabcp2035Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Karam Udyog Vs. Jo Circle - 1(1)(1) 9, Gailana Road Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Abbfk0897L (Appellant) (Respondent)

100 Taxmann.Com 244 In view of the dichotomy en-controversies existing 2014 we amendment came above which as per notes on clauses as per the finance act, starts with EXPLANATION V —''FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS" IT IS CLARIFICATORY CURATIVE INTENDED TO SET AT REST THE CONTROVERSY IT IS DOES NOT BRING FORTH ANY SUBSTANTIVE LAW DOES NOT IMPOSE

SAPNA CHAUHAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, ETAWAH

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 148 of the Act. ITAT, Delhi in the case of BirBahadur Singh Sijwali vs. ITO(2015) 68 SOT 197 (Delhi –Trib.) wherein it was held that (page 2 – 6):- “8. Let us, in the light of this legal position, revert to the facts of the case before us. All that the reasons recorded for reopening indicate is that

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)

Section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business

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)

Section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business

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)

Section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business

SHIVA PRESERVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,ETAWAH vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(5), ETAWAH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shiva Preservation Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Kaist, Jawantnagar, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh -206245 Etawah (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecs3418D Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement /11/2025

68 of the Act being unverifiable in nature and the same was added under the head „income from other sources‟ by the learned AO in the assessment proceedings. In the said quantum assessment proceedings, the learned AO recorded the satisfaction that Assessee had attempted to conceal the income of Rs 4,25,000/- by furnishing of inaccurate particulars and accordingly

LAKSHYA ICE & COLD STORAGE P LTD,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(5), ALIGARH

In the result, by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S Lakshya Ice & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs.. Income Tax Officer, Goyal Bhawan, Opp. Maheshwari Inter Ward 1(5), Aligarh College, Sasni Gate, Bye Pass Road, Aligarh (Pan: Aabcl5656R) (Respondent) (Appellant)

68 of the Act by arbitrarily treating the genuine investment made by the shareholders in the share capital of the appellant as alleged accommodation entry, deserves to be deleted. 6. That the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in not providing the appellant the informations and documents/material for which specific request(s) was made. It is settled

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

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

68,605/-, on account of under section 69A of the IT Act, without appreciating the fact of the case that amount of Rs 57.68,605/- debited by the bank but not found recorded in the books of account of the assessee. (vii) That, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.36

SHRI SIYARAM YADAV,MAINPURI vs. ITO 2(5), MAINPURI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

100/- made by the A.O. u/s 68. 10. That the C.I.T. (Appeal) and A.O. have erred on facts and in law to not allow credit of accretion of saving from agriculture income and other income for Rs. 22,38,000/- when the A.O. has I.T.A No. 117/Agra/2017 3 himself accepted the source of income from agriculture

PREMWATI SUMAN,AGRA vs. ITO-1(3), AGRA

In the result both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Premwati Suman, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(3), 1/1, Hig Flats, Sanjay Place, Agra. Agra. Pan: Bnvps9819N (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri. Ranjeet Suman, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(3), 1/1, Hig Flats, Sanjay Place, Agra. Agra. Pan: Bnlps9622P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 148 of the Act. The distinction noted by the learned CIT (A) is unconvincing and without any basis merely to circumvent and overcome the binding force of the referred decisions. ITAT, Delhi in the case of BirBahadur Singh Sijwali vs. ITO(2015) 68 SOT 197 (Delhi –Trib) wherein it was held that: “8.Let us, in the light

GOVIND SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

68 of the IT Act. The first appeal filed by the appellant assessee was dismissed by the ld CIT(A), vide impugned order dated 07.07.2025, against which this second appeal. 6. As regards the preliminary issue raised through the additional ground noted hereinabove, the approval granted by the ld PCIT-1-(Agra) in terms of section

SMT. GARIMA MEHTA,GWALIOR vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(2), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

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

section 10A of the Act, if a unit is notified as an STP, that would suffice. 29. APB 68-69 is a copy of permission of the Software Technology Parks of India, granted to the assessee, extending to the assessee, all facilities and privileges admissible under the STP Scheme for setting up a 100

SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SARASWAT,MATHURA vs. ITO 1(3)(4), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 147, issuance of notice u/s 148 is considered necessary, after having approval from Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-3 Mathura.” 3. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee relied on the following case laws: “a) Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali vs. ITO reported as (2015) 68 SOT 197 (Delhi -Trib) (APB, 16 to 20). b) Amrik Singh