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

13, wherein no addition was made, establishing consistency in conduct and treatment of such investments. 5.3 Thus, once all the conditions of section 68 are demonstrated to be satisfied through the aforesaid documentary evidences, the initial burden stands discharged, and the onus shifts to the Department to rebut such evidence with cogent material, which the Assessing Officer has failed

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

13, wherein no addition was made, establishing consistency in conduct and treatment of such investments. 5.3 Thus, once all the conditions of section 68 are demonstrated to be satisfied through the aforesaid documentary evidences, the initial burden stands discharged, and the onus shifts to the Department to rebut such evidence with cogent material, which the Assessing Officer has failed

MODERN AGENCIES,JHANSI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-6, JHANSI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly

section 144 i.e. ‘Best Judgment Assessment.’ 3. The assessment of income as per discussion above is framed below: “a. The value of phyiscial stock taken on date of survey was Rs.1,30,14,587/-. The partner of the firms, Sh. Mukesh Agarwal in his statement on the date of survey was confronted with this stock inventory which was taken

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

68 read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act,\n1961 - Cash credit (Gift) Assessment years 2007-08 and\n2008-09 - Assessee received certain amount as gifts from\nhis father and sister who were non-residents in India\nAssessing Officer after making detailed enquiries, took a\nview that assessee had duly proved identity, source and\ncreditworthiness of donors Commissioner

KNP ASSOCIATES,AGRA vs. WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshknp Associates, Vs. Acit, 10, Panchwati Colony, Circle-1, Vinay Nagar, Bodla, Agra Nashik (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaufk5403H Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Molhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

68,988. c) A R Traders – PAN – AAXFA5707F As per the copy of account submitted by the Assessee, the total sales made to this party was Rs. 33,69,531 and the closing balance was Rs. 1,12,445. In response to the notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act, the party submitted the copy

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

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

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

section 145(3) is wholly illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant. 6. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 24,68,23,586/- out of addition of Rs 42,24,51,350/- made by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) further

M/S GINNI FILAMENTS LTD.,MATHURA vs. A.C.I.T., RANGE-3, MATHURA

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

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

13,643.39 19.69% U/S 143 (3) 2012-13 71,214.93 -3500.87 48,647.57 2,985.96 16,080.53 8.41% U/S 143 (3)/250 9 The para 9 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2012-13 accepting the G.P. rate of 8.41% based on the remand report, was as under : "9. G.P. Addition Rs. 82,68

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

3,00,00,000/- will be added in your income u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 which may be noted” 20. This notice on the date appointed was notcomplied with. However, as found noted in the assessment order,the A.R of the assessee 13 I.T.A No. 331/Agra/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) ShriAbhishekGarg CA attended on 24.03.2014 before the learned

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)

3) of the Act, nor has he pointed out any defect in purchases, sales, quantitative stock records, or closing stock, the details of which were furnished by the assessee. Once the books of account are accepted as correct and complete, individual entries therein cannot be selectively disbelieved on mere suspicion or conjecture. The addition u/s. 68

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

3(1) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The Scheme is administered by the Government of India in the Department of Electronics. It is administered through the directors of respective Software Technology Parks of India, a society established by the Department of Electronics. 28. Section 10A of the IT Act requires, in Explanation-2 (vii), that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA vs. ALNOOR EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,625/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Id AO proceeded to examine the veracity of purchases made by the Assessee. The Assessee furnished the list of parties from whom it had made purchases. The Assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacture and export of frozen meat, hide, MBM, poultry feed, tallow etc., from

RISHAV SHELTERS P LTD,AGRA vs. JCIT RANGE-4 , AGRA

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

13. The AO who was the Ld. JCIT in the case of the assessee and who passed the impugned assessment order had wrongly and illegally relied upon the provisions of section 44AD of the Act, since the appellant turnover was more than Rs. 1 crore, where the provisions of section 44AD would not apply

M/S RADHARANI JEWELLERS LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh

13,80,050. The Learned CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex parte and dismissed the appeal primarily on the ground that the Assessee did not file submissions before the appellate proceedings. The Learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Learned AO without examining the evidences already available on record. 3. The Assessee Company electronically filed its return

M/S RADHARANI JEWELLERS LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh

13,80,050. The Learned CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex parte and dismissed the appeal primarily on the ground that the Assessee did not file submissions before the appellate proceedings. The Learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Learned AO without examining the evidences already available on record. 3. The Assessee Company electronically filed its return

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

13 to 17 to this written submission. Your honour are requested to kindly consider that same quash the additions made in the assessment order." 5.1.3. Decision: I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the finding of the Assessing Officer and also the written submissions put forth on behalf of the appellant. The case of the Assessing Officer