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

SAPNA CHAUHAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, ETAWAH

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

234B amounting to Rs. 18,414/, of the ‘Act’. Alternatively the Interest has excessively and incorrectly been charged. BECAUSE, the assessment order dated 30.12.2016 to 8. the extent making addition is bad in law and against the facts of the case. (Asst. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) The ‘appellant’ craves leave to add, alter or vary the grounds of appeal

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

234B, and 234C which is wrong, and illegal. 7. Because in any view, and without prejudice to the above grounds, additions made, interest charged, and the Assessment Order passed is wrong, illegal, without proper opportunity, bad in law and against the facts and law of the case.” 1.1. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: “1. That

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

234B, and 234C which is wrong, and illegal. 7. Because in any view, and without prejudice to the above grounds, additions made, interest charged, and the Assessment Order passed is wrong, illegal, without proper opportunity, bad in law and against the facts and law of the case.” 1.1. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: “1. That

ARJUN TRADING CO. PVT. LTD.,FIROZABAD vs. I.T.O.-5(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaarjun Trading Company Private Vs..Ito-5,(1), Ltd. A-4, Ganesh Nagar, Firozabad. Firozabad. Panno.Aadca7230J (Assessee) (Revenue)

234B amounting to Rs. 30,56,047/-.” 2. The facts are that order dated 29.12.2010 was passed under sections 143(3)/147 of the Act at a total income of Rs.59,07,149/-, wherein an addition of Rs.59,80,000/- was made on account of unexplained cash credits in the form of share application money received during financial year

M/S GINNI FILAMENTS LTD.,MATHURA vs. A.C.I.T., RANGE-3, MATHURA

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

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

234B & 234C of the 'Act'. 11. BECAUSE, the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice.” 2. Effectively ground No. 2(a) to 2(c) pertain to rejection of books of account and estimation of gross profit @ 16% as against 13.96% disclosed by the assessee. 3. Apropos these grounds ld. AR for the assessee

NEETA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Neeta Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-23, New Agra, Agra Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpa0936E Assessee By : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 95,20,372 under section 68 of the Act, 1961 whereas in the appellant case section 68 was not applicable. 4. That on the facts

SMT ARCHANA DUTTA,MATHURA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Archana Dutta, Prop. M/S Vs..Acit,Circle-3, Dutta & Dutta Construction, Co., Mathura. 77E Dutta & Dutta Construction, Govind Nagar, Mathura. Panno.Afxpd7557B (Assessee) (Revenue)

68 of the 'Act'. 5. BECAUSE, after having rejected the books of accounts by invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the 'Act' and thereafter computing Business Profit after application of profit rate there is no valid basis for making separate addition of Rs. 9,157/- under section 43B of the Act. 6. BECAUSE, alternatively, in any view

AMIT JAIN,FIROZABAD vs. ITO-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed”

Bench: The Learned Cit (A).

234B of the Act. ITA 287/Agr/ 2017 Shri Amit Jain AY 13-14 4 5. Because, the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice and in any view of the matter deserves to be quashed.” 3.0 Shri Anurag Sinha, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the assessee submitted that ground No.1

LAKSHYA ICE & COLD STORAGE P LTD,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(5), ALIGARH

In the result, by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S Lakshya Ice & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs.. Income Tax Officer, Goyal Bhawan, Opp. Maheshwari Inter Ward 1(5), Aligarh College, Sasni Gate, Bye Pass Road, Aligarh (Pan: Aabcl5656R) (Respondent) (Appellant)

68 of the Act by arbitrarily treating the genuine investment made by the shareholders in the share capital of the appellant as alleged accommodation entry, deserves to be deleted. 6. That the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in not providing the appellant the informations and documents/material for which specific request(s) was made. It is settled

MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

234B\nand 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n14.\nThat the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the ground\nof appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each\nother.\n1.3 The grounds as raised by the revenue read as under: -\n1.\nThe

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Anand Kumar Jain Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 30/41, Chhipitola Ward-1 (1)(1), Agra Agra Pan :Aarpj3189L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gaurav Goyal , Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 Order

3. That the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the cash sales were duly recorded in the books of accounts, supported by VAT returns and sale invoices, and were part of regular business activity since many years. 4. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition u/s 68 read with section 115BBE, even when no credit

TAHIR KHAN,JHANSI vs. ITO, JHANSI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

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 2 purposes

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

234B\nand 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n14.\nThat the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the ground\nof appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each\nother.\n1.3 The grounds as raised by the revenue read as under: -\n1.\nThe

PREMWATI SUMAN,AGRA vs. ITO-1(3), AGRA

In the result both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Premwati Suman, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(3), 1/1, Hig Flats, Sanjay Place, Agra. Agra. Pan: Bnvps9819N (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri. Ranjeet Suman, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(3), 1/1, Hig Flats, Sanjay Place, Agra. Agra. Pan: Bnlps9622P (Appellant) (Respondent)

234B and 234C is incorrectly charged. The ‘appellant’ craves leave to add, alter or vary the 11. grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) 7. The learned A.R of the assessee ShriAnuragSinha, Advocate submitted that the purported reasons are no reasons in the eye of Law. No persons properly instructed on facts

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)

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not dealt the ground regarding illegal addition of 24,83,15,217/- under Section 69A on account of cash deposits in the bank accounts which were duly recorded in the books of accounts and supported by an audit report, making

SHRI AJAY ARORA,MATHURA vs. ACIT 3, MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

68,194/- ignoring the submission of the appellant and past history of the case. 7. BECAUSE, interest under section 234B & 234C is either not chargeable or has been excessively charged.” I.T.A No. 198/Agra/2016 3

MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 14. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the ground of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 1.3 The grounds as raised by the revenue read as under