BANCO CONSTRUCTION,BANSAL KOTHI, NEHRU COLONY THATIPUR vs. ACIT, FACELESS

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhbanco Construction, Vs. Acit, Bansal Kothi, Nehru Faceless, Gwalior Colony, Thatipur, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabfb7336D Assessee By : Shri Anurag Singh, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/03/2026

144 read with section 144B of the Act on 26-3-2022 determining total income at Rs. 1,68

PREM LATA VERMA ,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), ALIGARH, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

section 68 of the Act, by treating the loan advanced to M/s Raj Prem Associates (P.) Ltd. during the year under consideration as unexplained cash credits. 3. Ground No. 3: That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by upholding the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- on account of agricultural income, without

RAJESH TYAGI,AMBAH vs. ITO WARD 1, MORENA, MORENA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2020-21 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Assessment Unit, S/O Laxmi Narayan Tyagi Gavri National Faceless Assessment Service, Gulab Ka Pura Ambah Centre, Income Tax Officer, Distt. Morena Ward-1, Morena Pan : Bmmpt3132K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Sandeep, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order

144 & 144B of the Act is bad in law, invalid and void-ab-initio. 7. BECAUSE under the facts and circumstance and in law the Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 5,60,000/-on account of unexplained money for cash deposit in bank under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, even cash deposit amount

JOURA CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MORENA, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO, MORENA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19 Joura Co-Operative Marketing Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Society Limited Ward-1, Morena The Joura Dist Morena Dist. Morena Pan :Aabaj1828K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S. N. Agarwal, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Order

144 of the Act. Still the assessee has not responded to any notice based on the information available on the record, why he should not proceed to make additions to the extent of cash deposits made by the assessee during the year in Central Bank of India and Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit to the extent

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

144 of the Act, as mandated by sub section (3) of section 145 of the Act. 7. BECAUSE, upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case, the ld AO has erred in law and on facts in invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. The Id AO has drawn an inference that

RADHIKA GARG,HATHRAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Radhika Garg, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 14/100, Kambhu Tola Ward-2(1)(3), Hospital Road, Hathras, Up Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afepg2999H Assessee By : Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

68 days. Considering the reasons adduced in the condonation petition, I am inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication in the interest of substantial justice. 3. I find that the assessee vide ground number 5 had raised a preliminary ground stating that the statutory notice under section

SOURABH JAIN,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Saurabh Jain, Guna. 1, Near Sanjeevani Vs. Hospital Garha Colony, Guna, Madhaya Pradesh-473001 Pan-Bgjpj7915F (Appellant) (Respondent)

144 is void ab initio because same was framed on duplicate PAN of the appellant while appellant assessed on original PAN. Thus Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deciding to such matter required under the law. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not dealt the ground regarding illegal

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

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is partly

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

68 Month wise Production of Dairy Products 69 Month wise detail of Sales of various products 452 – 456 Copy of Annual VAT Return filed for the Financial Year 2012-13 457 – 463 Month wise detail of Sales to various parties 464 – 466 List of Trade Receivables in excess of Rs. 1 lac 467 – 468 List of Sundry Creditors 469 Copies

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. CHITAVALSAH JUTE MILLS LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Acit, Vs. Chitavalasah Jute Mills Ltd, Range-1, 73-74, 201, Sheetala House, Faridabad Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccc6834D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

68 or section 41 of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer also did not make any inquiry with respect to the above figure of Rs 49,72,098. The appellant has submitted a number of case laws, in respect of ad-hoc addition as well as non-specification of the provisions of the Act under which the addition

KUSHAL VARSHNEY,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 4(1)(3), ALIGARH

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Kushal Varshney, Vs. Ito, 1/83, Naurangabad, Aligarh Ward-4(1)(3), Up 202001 Aligarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aevpv0578H Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 06/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/02/2025

144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 24.12.2019 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-4(1)(3), Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before us:- Grounds of Appeal “1. Because the Ld. CIT(Appeal) has erred both on facts

SIVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN,KANNAUJ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shivendra Singh Chauhan, Vs. Acit, 1, Durga Naga Tirwa, Circle-4(2)(1), Kannauj- 209732 Farrukhabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Agvpc5211C

144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 07.11.2019 by the Assessing Officer, ACIT, Circle-4(2)(1), Farrukhabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in dismissing

MARSHAL SECURITY SERVICES,AGRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

144 of the Act on the basis of material available on record\nand added Rs. 1,53,70,347/- (@ 25% of various expenses amounting to\nRs.6,14,81,388/-), in the total income of the assessee.\n3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(Appeals),\nwho called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer. Appellant\nassessee

MANJU AGARWAL,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Manju Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, W/O. Sameer Agarwal, Ward-1(2), Near Surya Tower, Old Gwalior High Court Road, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Afepa7981H Assessee By : Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 19.12.2019 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-1(2), Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, and in any view of the matter

MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL,FARUKHABAD vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 30.03.2022 wherein an addition of Rs. 1,23,46,358/- being the amount of unsecured loan added u/s 68 of the Act. 12. At the outset, we find that the reasons recorded by the ld AO for reopening the assessment are very very vague and does not contain any ITA Nos. 54 & 76/AGR/2025

MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL,FARRUKHABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4(2)(1) FARRUKHABAD, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 30.03.2022 wherein an addition of Rs. 1,23,46,358/- being the amount of unsecured loan added u/s 68 of the Act. 12. At the outset, we find that the reasons recorded by the ld AO for reopening the assessment are very very vague and does not contain any ITA Nos. 54 & 76/AGR/2025

SHASHI BALA ,BALLABGARH vs. ITO WARD 4(1)(1), ALIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

68, Vs. Income-tax Officer, Bhagat Singh Colony, Ward 4(1)(1), Aligarh. Ballabhgarh (Haryana). PAN : CBJPB6984L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Jitendra Jindal, CA Department by Sh. R.P. Maurya, CIT (A)-1/DR Date of hearing 17.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 17.12.2025 ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order

HYDRISE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

68,040/- Yours Faithfully, (Pratibha Singh) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-08, New Delhi” 11. From the above proposal, it is clear that the same is not accompanied by any assessment folder, seized material or any other related documents for completion of assessment. It means that before the Additional CIT, only a proposal vide letter F.No.ACIT/Central

HYDRISE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

68,040/- Yours Faithfully, (Pratibha Singh) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-08, New Delhi” 11. From the above proposal, it is clear that the same is not accompanied by any assessment folder, seized material or any other related documents for completion of assessment. It means that before the Additional CIT, only a proposal vide letter F.No.ACIT/Central