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)

68 read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Gift) Assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 - Assessee received certain amount as gifts from his father and sister who were non-residents in India - Assessing Officer after making detailed enquiries, took a view that assessee had duly proved identity, source and creditworthiness of donors - Commissioner

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)

68 read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Gift) Assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 - Assessee received certain amount as gifts from his father and sister who were non-residents in India - Assessing Officer after making detailed enquiries, took a view that assessee had duly proved identity, source and creditworthiness of donors - Commissioner

TAHIR KHAN,JHANSI vs. ITO, JHANSI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 68 of the Act without consideration of the material brought on records of the AO, facts of the case and law. 3. BECAUSE the authorities below were unjustified in making and confirming the impugned addition of Rs.97,31,000/- as deemed income of the appellant (taking the value u/s 56(2)(vii) at Govt. price (For stamp

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

SMT. NEETA SHARMA,AGRA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2007-08

173, is misplaced. That authority is clearly distinguishable on the facts. In that case, the discrepancy in the stock hypothecated with the bank and that shown in the account books was explained to the satisfaction of the Tribunal which is the final fact-finding authority. The revenue moved an application to this Court for a reference under section

A.C.I.T.-2, AGRA vs. SMT. NEETA SHARMA PROP., AGRA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2007-08

173, is misplaced. That authority is clearly distinguishable on the facts. In that case, the discrepancy in the stock hypothecated with the bank and that shown in the account books was explained to the satisfaction of the Tribunal which is the final fact-finding authority. The revenue moved an application to this Court for a reference under section

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

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

68,184.63 Working of the excess stock valued at cost as declared by the assessee on the basis of the excess quantity of material found during survey and declared in the above Profit & Loss Account at Rs. 39,13,263/- is shown to have been computed by the assessee (appellant) as under— Physical statement date of survey taken by department

ACIT-CIRCEL-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. MAYANK AGRAWAL, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

68, consisting of 16 pages, wherein, he was asked various questions relating to seized documents and other detail of his bank accounts and many other issues were clarified. Then due to pressure and coercion, in reply to question No.25 at page 64 of the Paper Book, offered a sum of Rs. 42 lacs during search as undisclosed income

ACIT-CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. PUNEET AGARWAL, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

68, consisting of 16 pages, wherein, he was asked various questions relating to seized documents and other detail of his bank accounts and many other issues were clarified. Then due to pressure and coercion, in reply to question No.25 at page 64 of the Paper Book, offered a sum of Rs. 42 lacs during search as undisclosed income

VISHWAMBHAR DAYAL AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

68, consisting of 16 pages, wherein, he was asked various questions relating to seized documents and other detail of his bank accounts and many other issues were clarified. Then due to pressure and coercion, in reply to question No.25 at page 64 of the Paper Book, offered a sum of Rs. 42 lacs during search as undisclosed income

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA vs. SH. VISHWAMBHAR DAYAL AGARWAL, AGRA

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

68, consisting of 16 pages, wherein, he was asked various questions relating to seized documents and other detail of his bank accounts and many other issues were clarified. Then due to pressure and coercion, in reply to question No.25 at page 64 of the Paper Book, offered a sum of Rs. 42 lacs during search as undisclosed income