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

section 68 are demonstrated to be satisfied through the aforesaid documentary evidences, the initial burden stands discharged, and the onus shifts to the Department to rebut such evidence with cogent material, which the Assessing Officer has failed to discharge in the instant case before making addition u/s. 68. 6.0 Reliance is placed on the following decisions. Inter publicity

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

section 68 are demonstrated to be satisfied through the aforesaid documentary evidences, the initial burden stands discharged, and the onus shifts to the Department to rebut such evidence with cogent material, which the Assessing Officer has failed to discharge in the instant case before making addition u/s. 68. 6.0 Reliance is placed on the following decisions. Inter publicity

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

25. It is trite law in view of section 68 of the Act which creates a deeming fiction and which

AKHIL BHARTIYA GAHOI VAISHAY CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, WARD EXEMPLTION

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68 of the Act. This addition was taxed at the enhanced rate of 60% by applying the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. The appeal preferred by the assessee before the Learned NFAC was pending. Later this assessment was sought to be rectified under section 154 of the Act as surcharge at the rate of 25

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.”

25: The AO has not been able to bring on record any cogent material or collaborative evidence to correlate the figure mentioned in the so called piece of paper.  Para 7.5, page 26: Is just a sample rough piece of paper having no signatures of any person and also no date, and thus it cannot be called a document

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

PUSHPA,MATHURA vs. ITO-1(2)(3), MATHURA

In the result,both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri. Pushpendra Singh. Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(2)(3), M-22, Phase-I, Mahavidhya Colony. Agra. Mathura. Pan: Dldps6755P (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Pushpa Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(2)(3), M-22, Phase-I, Mahavidhya Colony. Agra. Mathura. Pan: Bcopd0484L (Appellant) (Respondent)

25. Learned Sr. D.R has placed reliance to Sri Banarsi Prasad vs CIT decided on 29 February, 2008, wherein no question of reopening was involved and the Hon’ble High Court , context of section 68

MANISH MAHESHWARI,GWALIOR vs. JCIT RANGE-2, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him Though Specific Request Was Made To Admit The Same. Ground No. 2 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed Theaddition Of Rs. 67,530/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 40A(3) Of The Income Tax Act. (Ii) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Legally Erred In Rejecting The Appellant'Sspecificsubmissionand The Unavoidable Circumstances Under Which The Payment Wasmade. Ground No. 3 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed An Addition Of Rs. 1,11,038/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Disallowing The Claim Of Interest Paid Holding The Same To Be Not Allowable U/S 57(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act.”

section 68 of the Act.” 4. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the additional evidence furnished by the appellant under Rule 46A of the Act and confirmed the addition as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act vide Para 7.3 as follows: “7.3 I have gone through the assessment order and written submission carefully

SUMIT KUMRA AGARWAL,GWALIOR vs. ITO., WARD-2(3), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

The appeal stand partly allowed

25-03-2019 in the matter of an\nassessment framed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act on 13-12-2011\nmaking various additions in the hands of the assessee. Having heard\nrival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication\nwould be as under.\n2.\nDuring hearing, Ld. AR did not press for ground

SHARAD MAHESHWARI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), GWALIOR (M. P.), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sharad Maheshwari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, W-63, 3Rd Floor, Ward-3(2), Greater Kailash-2, Gwalior South Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Afepa7981H Assessee By : Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

25,000/- for want of supporting documents. The learned AO accordingly added the said sums represented as gifts as a colourable device to avoid taxation under the Income Tax Act and added the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68

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.

25. Thus, for the above reasons we are fully satisfied that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act was wholly without jurisdiction as the twin tests have not been satisfied and consequently, the order dated 14.03.2012 as confirmed by the Tribunal by order dated 13.07.2012 calls for interference.” 23. Similar view has been

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.

25. Thus, for the above reasons we are fully satisfied that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act was wholly without jurisdiction as the twin tests have not been satisfied and consequently, the order dated 14.03.2012 as confirmed by the Tribunal by order dated 13.07.2012 calls for interference.” 23. Similar view has been

SHIVA PRESERVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,ETAWAH vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(5), ETAWAH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shiva Preservation Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Kaist, Jawantnagar, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh -206245 Etawah (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecs3418D Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement /11/2025

25,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act being unverifiable in nature and the same

M/S RADHARANI JEWELLERS LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh

68 read with Vijay Kumar Jain section 115BBE of the Act in the sum of Rs 25,33,246 and addition

M/S RADHARANI JEWELLERS LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh

68 read with Vijay Kumar Jain section 115BBE of the Act in the sum of Rs 25,33,246 and addition

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

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