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

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

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

vi) That, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.57,68,605/-, 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

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

24. set up in accordance with the Software Technology Parks Scheme notified by the Government of India. ‘Convertible Foreign Exchange’, as per the said Explanation-2 to section 25. 10A, is foreign exchange which is for the time being treated by the Reserve Bank of India as convertible foreign exchange for the purpose of the Foreign Exchange Regulation

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)

24,558/- on ‘protective basis’ u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act, with a finding that substantive addition be made in the hands of beneficiary being the assessee HMA Agro Industries Ltd. It was further stated in the show cause notice that the AO has failed to examine and establish the modus operandi of bogus purchases and, thus

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)

24,558/- on ‘protective basis’ u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act, with a finding that substantive addition be made in the hands of beneficiary being the assessee HMA Agro Industries Ltd. It was further stated in the show cause notice that the AO has failed to examine and establish the modus operandi of bogus purchases and, thus

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)

24,558/- on ‘protective basis’ u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act, with a finding that substantive addition be made in the hands of beneficiary being the assessee HMA Agro Industries Ltd. It was further stated in the show cause notice that the AO has failed to examine and establish the modus operandi of bogus purchases and, thus

AVNINDRA MISHRA,MATHURA vs. ITO-1(3)(1), MATHURA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2. 57/Del/2012 in ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO’, ITA No.5111/Del/2013. 3. ‘Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. I.T.A No. 441/Agra/2017 6 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions have been relied on: ‘S. Narayanappa

ANITA YADAV,MATHURA vs. ITO -1(3)(1), MATHURA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2. 57/Del/2012 in ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO’, ITA No.5111/Del/2013. 3. ‘Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions have been relied on: I.T.A No. 422/Agra/2017 6 ‘S. Narayanappa

BIJENDRA KUMAR,MATHURA vs. ITO-1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2. 57/Del/2012 in ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO’, ITA No.5111/Del/2013. 3. ‘Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions have been relied on: ‘S. Narayanappa vs. CIT’, 63 ITR 219 (SC). i. ‘Chhugamal Rajpal

GHANSHYAM ,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2. ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO’, ITA No.5111/Del/2013. 3. ‘Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions have been relied on: ‘S. Narayanappa vs. CIT’, 63 ITR 219 (SC). i. ‘Chhugamal Rajpal

GHANSHYAM ,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2. ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO’, ITA No.5111/Del/2013. 3. ‘Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions have been relied on: ‘S. Narayanappa vs. CIT’, 63 ITR 219 (SC). i. ‘Chhugamal Rajpal

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. M/S. UNITED FARM PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED, AGRA

In the result, appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhacit, Cc, Vs. M/S. United Farm Product Pvt. Ltd., 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002 (Agra) (Pan :Aaccu2505M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Shri Deependra Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 04.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kanpur – 4 Dated 28.03.2025 For Assessment Year2022-23 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “L. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. The Ld. Cit(A)-Iv. Kanpur Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.43,71,37,934/- On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C Of The Act Incurred For Construction Of Plant At Mewat, Haryana, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Company Itself Has Surrendered Amount Of Rs.41,40,35,700/- & Admitted To Take The Unexplained Expenditure At Rs.43,71,37,934/- Incurred In The 2 Construction Of Said Plant. Hence, The Addition Made By The Ao Is Based On Admittance By The Assessee, Which Is Corroborated By The Incriminating Material Found During The Course Of Search. 2. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A)-Iv. Kanpur Has Erred In Deleting The Addition. Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessing Officer Has Passed The Assessment Order After Thoroughly Examining & Analysing The Seized Material & Proper Appreciation Of Facts Of Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C Of The Act.”

vi. Thereafter, an appeal was made by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), the entire addition of Rs. 43,71,37,934/- was deleted by him and a summary of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is as under: Relevant page and para Particulars number of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) Para 2, Page

SMT. SARLA DEVI,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

68 of the Act, Rs.2,35,096/- u/s 69 of the Act and Rs.2,42,933/- u/s 69C of the Act, were confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), Ghaziabad vide order in Appeal No.48/2009-10/GZB-ALG, dated 21-02-2011. 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the penalty order dated 30.03.2012, as sustained

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

vi) [2017] 88 taxmann.com 506 (Gujarat High Court) CIT vs. Patel Proteins (P) Ltd. (Para 2 Pg. 222) (vii) [2013] 40 taxmann.com 177 (Gujarat High Court) CIT, Ahmedabad vs. Riddhi Steel and Tube (P) Ltd. (Para 9.2 Pg. 230) (viii) [2011] 12 taxmann.com 411 (Punjab & Haryana HC) CIT, Ludhiana vs. Santosh Box Factory (P) Ltd. (Para 2

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

vi) [2017] 88 taxmann.com 506 (Gujarat High Court) CIT vs. Patel Proteins (P) Ltd. (Para 2 Pg. 222) (vii) [2013] 40 taxmann.com 177 (Gujarat High Court) CIT, Ahmedabad vs. Riddhi Steel and Tube (P) Ltd. (Para 9.2 Pg. 230) (viii) [2011] 12 taxmann.com 411 (Punjab & Haryana HC) CIT, Ludhiana vs. Santosh Box Factory (P) Ltd. (Para 2

M/S UMA GLASS WORKS ,FIROZABAD vs. PR.CIT.-1, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

vi) R.M.Tradelink Vs. PCIT, ITA No.68/Rjt/2022 Dt: 16-09-2022 I.T.A.Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021/A.Ys.2014-15 & 2015-16 11. The Ld. Counsel submits that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vam Resorts & Hotels (P) Ltd. (supra) held that when an appeal is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner is barred under

M/S UMA GLASS WORKS,AGRA vs. PR.CIT.-1, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

vi) R.M.Tradelink Vs. PCIT, ITA No.68/Rjt/2022 Dt: 16-09-2022 I.T.A.Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021/A.Ys.2014-15 & 2015-16 11. The Ld. Counsel submits that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vam Resorts & Hotels (P) Ltd. (supra) held that when an appeal is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner is barred under

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)

section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore the assessment order is void ab-initio and liable to be quashed. 2. That the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition of Rs.42,,00,000/- allegedly for unexplained cash found during the course of search ignoring the explanation of cash and its availability