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)

256/ AGRA/ 2014 4. The Ld.AR for the assessee has submitted that appellant has raised 11 grounds in the present appeal out of which, the assesseeis not pressing down 1 ,2 and 4 of the grounds of appeal. As a assessee is not pressing these ground , therefore these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. & 355/Agra/2014 & SA Nos. 1 to 3/Ag/2017

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, MORENA vs. SHRI AGRASEN LOGISTICS, JOTAI ROAD, PORSA,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

2 filed with Registrar of Companies by such\napplicants, confirmations by applicants for company's shares, certificates by\nauditors, etc., Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition\nunder section 68 on account of share application money merely on general\ninference to be drawn from the reading of the investigation report. The least that\nAssessing Officer ought to have

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

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

section 145(3) is wholly illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant. 6. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 24,68,23,586/- out of addition of Rs 42,24,51,350/- made by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) further

ITO 1(2), GWALIOR vs. SMT REENA AGRAWAL, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13

2 (12A) was not there on statute, which is inserted by the finance act, 2001, with effect from 1/6/2001. Further, the honourable Bombay High Court in 85 taxmann.com 306, 250 taxman 362 and 399 ITR 256 (Bombay) in Arunkumar J Muchhala V CIT has considered an identical issue where the above decision of the honourable Bombay High Court

HYDRISE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

68,040/- Yours Faithfully, (Pratibha Singh) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-08, New Delhi” 11. From the above proposal, it is clear that the same is not accompanied by any assessment folder, seized material or any other related documents for completion of assessment. It means that before the Additional CIT, only a proposal vide letter F.No.ACIT/Central

HYDRISE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

68,040/- Yours Faithfully, (Pratibha Singh) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-08, New Delhi” 11. From the above proposal, it is clear that the same is not accompanied by any assessment folder, seized material or any other related documents for completion of assessment. It means that before the Additional CIT, only a proposal vide letter F.No.ACIT/Central

RUBY JAIN,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(3), AGRA

In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as follows :

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshruby Jain, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1/78A, Kale Ka Tall, Delhi Ward-1(1)(3), Gate, Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aevpj4936P Assessee By : Shri K. K. Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

2,18,060/-. In the said return, the assessee had claimed an exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act on account of long-term capital gains from sale of shares of HPC Biosciences Ltd. The following facts are undisputed and indisputable:- a. The assessee purchased 4000 shares of HPC Biosciences Ltd @ 35 per share for ₹1,40,000/- through Cameo

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

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

2,52,012.19 and Lock and Key loans to the extent of Rs. 4,16,815.81, the total being Rs. 6,68,828. The Bank was advancing loans to the extent of a maximum of 70 per cent of the value of the securities offered. The assessee, in order to secure loan of Rs. 6,68,828 had to offer

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

2,52,012.19 and Lock and Key loans to the extent of Rs. 4,16,815.81, the total being Rs. 6,68,828. The Bank was advancing loans to the extent of a maximum of 70 per cent of the value of the securities offered. The assessee, in order to secure loan of Rs. 6,68,828 had to offer

MARSHAL SECURITY SERVICES,AGRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

256/-\nTotal\n6,14,81,388/-\n1,53,70,347/-\nLearned AR has referred order dated 17.03.2025 passed by Jaipur Bench of\nthe Tribunal in ITA No. 902/JPR/2024, Suchita Bhatia V. the DCIT in support\nof his arguments, praying to delete the addition and quash the impugned\norder.\n7. Learned Sr. DR for the revenue has submitted that assessee

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

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

256 ITR 243(Raj.). 3. BECAUSE, the authorities below erred on facts in making and sustaining addition of Rs. 12,26,645/- on account of notional gain on foreign currency as income without considering the facts that the same is unrealizable and notional. 4. BECAUSE, the authorities below had fallen in error in disallowing prior period expenses amounting

ACIT-CIRCEL-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. MAYANK AGRAWAL, 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)

2 with regard to 153C, compliance viz-a-viz 153A has been reproduced CO Nos.04, 03 & 05/Agr/2025 from pages 31 to 46 with case laws and other facts starting from pages 38 to 46 of the CIT(A) order. viii). Our submissions on account of Gold Jewellery as found and seized during the course of search as per Ground No.3

ACIT-CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. PUNEET AGARWAL, 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)

2 with regard to 153C, compliance viz-a-viz 153A has been reproduced CO Nos.04, 03 & 05/Agr/2025 from pages 31 to 46 with case laws and other facts starting from pages 38 to 46 of the CIT(A) order. viii). Our submissions on account of Gold Jewellery as found and seized during the course of search as per Ground No.3

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)

2 with regard to 153C, compliance viz-a-viz 153A has been reproduced CO Nos.04, 03 & 05/Agr/2025 from pages 31 to 46 with case laws and other facts starting from pages 38 to 46 of the CIT(A) order. viii). Our submissions on account of Gold Jewellery as found and seized during the course of search as per Ground No.3

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA vs. SH. VISHWAMBHAR DAYAL AGARWAL, AGRA

2 to page 5' of his order.\nii).\nThereafter, from page 5 to 10, he has discussed the brief facts of\nthe assessment order.\niii). Our submissions on additional ground of appeal filed before the\nCIT(A), have been discussed from pages 11 to 13 of the CIT(A) order.\niv). Our submissions on additional ground of appeal No.8 with