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

68 of the Act. Learned AR of the assessee has filed a detailed written submission, which reads as under : “Reopening proceedings u/s. 147, being based on mere change of opinion and the notice u/s. 148 dated 13.09.2018, having been issued beyond the period of four years from the end of the A.Y. 2013-14, are ab initio

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

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

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

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

JHASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. DY. C.I.T., 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

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

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

3. Bisakha Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), 1493/2013 ITAT (Cal) 4. Rajmandir States Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT, ITA No. 113/2016 (Cal) 7.4 The Ld. DR contended that the assessee has itself conceded in the original assessment that Rs.92,00,000/- as its unexplained income in respect of unexplained capital deposit made by the partner; that

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

20. Concerning Ground No.4, during the year under consideration, the assessee setup an STPI Unit at Gwalior. Income of Rs.40,79,438/- earned from this unit was claimed as exempt u/s 10A of the IT Act. The AO disallowed the assessee’s claim u/s 10A on the basis that the 21. assessee did not fulfill the conditions contained in section

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

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

20,478/- —Held, assessee did not produce complete bills and vouchers in support of expenses—Therefore, AO was justified rejecting books of account applying provisions of section 145(3)— Assessee did not produce complete bills and vouchers of expenses claimed, therefore, it was reasonable and appropriate for CIT(A) to hold that prof it rate of 6 percent

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

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

3. We have heard the ld DR and perused the materials available on record. The return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 was filed by the Assessee declaring total income of Rs 8,68,68,625/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld AO proceeded to examine the veracity of purchases made by the Assessee. The Assessee

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

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

3. We have heard the ld DR and perused the materials available on record. The return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 was filed by the Assessee declaring total income of Rs 8,68,68,625/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld AO proceeded to examine the veracity of purchases made by the Assessee. The Assessee

SH. KULDEEP SRIVASTAVA,MATHURA vs. I.T.O., WARD-3(2), MATHURA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10

section 50C and the same is reproduced as under: - Name of the Amount of Stamp Amount Sale Proportionate vendee total sale registration considered amount stamp value consideration value for received for assesse computing by the capital gain assesse 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sanjeev Kumar 20,30,000 18,25,000 20

ACIT, C 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA vs. SUNIL KUMAR JOSHAN, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhacit, Vs. Sunil Kumar Joshan, Foot On Shoes, 7Th Circle-2(1)(1), Agra Km Stone, Agra Delhi Bye Pass Road, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abqpj4015P Co 07/Agr/2025 (In Ita No.494/Agr/2025) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sunil Kumar Joshan, Vs. Acit, Foot On Shoes, 7Th Km Circle-2(1)(1), Stone, Agra Delhi Bye Agra Pass Road, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abqpj4015P

68 read with section 115BBE of the Act without conducting any enquiries on his side. The following are the documentary evidences submitted by the assessee before the Learned AO to prove the nature and source of credit of the aforesaid sums:- Sl Particulars PB No. Page No. 1 Invitation letter of PHI Singapore dated 28.08.2012 with enclosures

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

20,000/-. The decision given as "dismissed" is not correct, same is to be "partly allowed." 10. That the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act could only be invoked on the amount "exceeded the taxable limit", the income assessed upto the taxable limit even unexplained cannot be charged to tax. Provisions of Section 115BBE

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

20 Auditors Report along with the audited Financial Statements 21 – 40 Audit Report under section 44AB in Form No. 3CA & 3CD 41 – 50 Comparative position of Gross Profit & Net Profit margins 59 Month wise detail of various expenses 60 – 65 Detail of sundry creditors in excess of Rs. 1 lac 66 Month wise detail of Raw Milk Purchase

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

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

3), the assessment made is illegal and bad in law. ITA No.216/Agr/2016, 183/Agr/2014,439/Agr/2015 & ITA No. 177/Agr/2014 13 (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