ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),AGRA, AGRA vs. EMCO EXPORTS, AGRA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

201(1A) to pay simple interest at 12 per cent per annum on the amount of such tax from the date on which such tax was deductible to the date on which such tax is actually paid. The most important expression in Section 195(1) consists of the words “chargeable under the provisions of the Act”. A person paying

NAVEEN GULU MULANI,AGRA vs. ITO, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 2(24)/14 of the Income Tax Act, liable to be annulled; that while sustaining the addition at Rs.47,60,004/-, the learned CIT (Appeals) has not appreciated the facts and the submissions before him. 4. He has argued that the additions made of Rs.47,60,004/- u/s 68 and the addition of Rs.5,04,000/- made under

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

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 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No. 99/AGR/2025 for AY 2012-13, arises out of the order of the National

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

201 ITR 192 is also not applicable. In this case, Income-tax Officer found that loans were being taken from the bank against goods, fixed assets and fixed deposit certificates, Mandi type loans to the extent of Rs. 2,52,012.19 and Lock and Key loans to the extent of Rs. 4,16,815.81, the total being Rs. 6,68

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

201 ITR 192 is also not applicable. In this case, Income-tax Officer found that loans were being taken from the bank against goods, fixed assets and fixed deposit certificates, Mandi type loans to the extent of Rs. 2,52,012.19 and Lock and Key loans to the extent of Rs. 4,16,815.81, the total being Rs. 6,68

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), AGRA vs. DR. ANIL KUMAR VERMA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the C

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaa.Y. :2009-10

68,375 4,50,000 From the above, it is clear that- 1. In the case of Bharat Bansal, the assessee has shown fresh unsecured loan of Rs 3 lacs while the loan of Rs 1.50 lacs was confirmed by the party. The closing balances of unsecured loans is Rs 3,00,000/- while the assessee in his books

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

STATE BANK OF INDIA,GWALIOR vs. CIT A , GWALIOR

In the result, ITA No.42/Agr/2018 is allowed for statistical

68, 61, State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 57 City Center, BPLS11822G 85,,76,77 India, Branch- Gwalior /Ag/2018 Raghaogarh, A.Y.2013-14 Guna 58- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 70 & 64 State Bank of 59 City Center, BPLS11718A /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior A.Y.2013-14 Mayana, guna 60- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 69 & 65 State Bank of 61- City Center, BPLS11689G /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior Pagagra

STATE BANK OF INDIA,GWALIOR vs. CIT A, GWALIOR

In the result, ITA No.42/Agr/2018 is allowed for statistical

68, 61, State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 57 City Center, BPLS11822G 85,,76,77 India, Branch- Gwalior /Ag/2018 Raghaogarh, A.Y.2013-14 Guna 58- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 70 & 64 State Bank of 59 City Center, BPLS11718A /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior A.Y.2013-14 Mayana, guna 60- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 69 & 65 State Bank of 61- City Center, BPLS11689G /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior Pagagra

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SANJAY PLACE AGRA vs. GUNJAN GUPTA BATRA, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhincome Tax Officer, Vs. Gunjan Gupta Batra, Ward 2 (1), Agra. A - 45, Sector 26, Noida – 201 301 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Abupg5419J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025

201 301 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : ABUPG5419J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Ms. Shilpa Gupta, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date of Order : 28.10.2025 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income