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

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, MORENA vs. SHRI AGRASEN LOGISTICS, JOTAI ROAD, PORSA,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68. SLP dismissed by Supreme Court reported at 258 Tахтап\n160 (SC).\n17.3 It was held by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Blessing Construction Vs ITO [2013] 214\nТахтап 645 (Gujarat) where sizeable amounts were deposited in cash in account of\ndepositors only before their withdrawal through cheques in favour of assessee, addition\nwas justified. Surrounding Circumstances

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 of the Act, ignoring that the assessee had duly discharged the initial burden by furnishing all the requisite documentary evidence to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants. 4. Because the learned CIT(A) NFAC has further erred in law and on facts in sustaining an addition of 79,11

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 of the Act, ignoring that the assessee had duly discharged the initial burden by furnishing all the requisite documentary evidence to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants. 4. Because the learned CIT(A) NFAC has further erred in law and on facts in sustaining an addition of 79,11

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

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

4) Because Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding activities of the appellant as commercial activity under the provisions of Sec.2(15). LdCIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not allowing benefit of section 11 of the Income Tax Act 1961 which the appellant is legally entitled by virtue of registration

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

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Hence addition of Rs. 92,00,000/- made by the AO on this account is hereby confirmed. 6. The ld. AR for the assessee reiterated the submission made before the Authorities below he contended that the appellant is a partnership firm comprising of two partners, namely sh. Naveen Chand Verma

SHRI OM PRAKASH SINGH,MATHURA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, AGRA

In the result appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

4 is partly allowed. 11. Vide Ground of Appeal No. 5, assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining addition of Rs.3,00,00,000/- under section 68

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

4, 5 and 6] [In favour of assessee]\nii).\nReliance is being placed on the judgment of CIT Vs. Nirav\nModi, 77 Taxmann.com 15 (SC), in which, it has been held as\nunder:-\n“Section 68 read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act,\n1961 - Cash credit (Gift) Assessment years 2007-08 and\n2008-09 - Assessee received

PRADEEP JAIN LEGAL HIER OF JAY NARAYAN,FIROZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(2),, FIROZABAD

68 unexplained cash deposits/credits\nin his hands, involving varying sums, respectively in his hands.\n4.\nThis being the clinching backdrop involved herein, we sought\nto know from the Revenue side as to whether this appellant Sh.\nPradip Jain has succeeded to the estate of the deceased assessee\nor not so as to be held as the “legal representative” as defined

JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL HUF,AGRA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

4 | P a g e Jewelers having its principal place of business at 1/101, Ground Floor, Kinari Bazar, Agra. The business was commenced by the assessee on 04.01.2016 i.e. during the F.Y. 2015-16 relevant to the A.Y. 2016-17 and the certificate of VAT registration No 09400129382C dated 06.01.2016 evidencing the above fact is placed on record. (PB Page

PRADEEP JAIN LEGAL HEIR OF JAY NARAYAN,FIROZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(2), FIROZABAD

sections": [ "147", "68", "2(29)", "2(11)", "159(4)" ], "issues": "Whether the appellant, treated as a \"legal heir\", was correctly

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

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act." It is requested that the above grounds now being taken as additional legal grounds No. 9,10 and 11 may kindly be admitted and obliged.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that as per information available with the Assessing Officer on AIMS Module of ITBA, it was observed by the Assessing

ITO 1(2), GWALIOR vs. SMT REENA AGRAWAL, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13

4) The amount of the net consideration which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of the new asset made within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset took place, or which is not utilised by him for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing

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)

11 ITA No.251/Agr/2025 and 4 ors. “Section 68 read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash

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)

11 ITA No.251/Agr/2025 and 4 ors. “Section 68 read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash

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)

11 ITA No.251/Agr/2025 and 4 ors. “Section 68 read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),AGRA, AGRA vs. EMCO EXPORTS, AGRA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

68 ITR 457] it was pointed out that if the payment made by the resident to the non-resident was an amount which was not chargeable to tax in India, then no tax is deductible at source even though the assessee had not made an application under Section 18(3B) (now Section

B K KESHARWANI, AGRA vs. MADHUR MITTAL, AGRA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ld Cit(A), Who Partly Allowed

4 | P a g e Cash Flow Statement: A detailed Cash Flow Statement demonstrating the availability of cash, including receipts, payments, and brought-forward balances. The statements records cash received from M/s Triveni Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd (TIDCO), where the appellant is a promoter director, and received as advances against Share Purchase Agreements (SPAs) from M/s Garg Commodities, M/s Mohan