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

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

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2019-20 is\nallowed and appeals filed by the Revenue in AYs 2021-22, 2022-23 and\n2023-24 are dismissed

68 read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act,\n1961 - Cash credit (Gift) Assessment years 2007-08 and\n2008

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.

section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, setting aside the assessment order to the file of Ld. Assessing Officer with the direction to pass fresh order after examining the issue is arbitrary, unjust, based on assumptions and presumptions and that no error existed nor prejudice was caused to Revenue, therefore, the order passed is bad in law and against

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.

section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, setting aside the assessment order to the file of Ld. Assessing Officer with the direction to pass fresh order after examining the issue is arbitrary, unjust, based on assumptions and presumptions and that no error existed nor prejudice was caused to Revenue, therefore, the order passed is bad in law and against

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

section 68, has held that while it was the assessee’s burden to furnish explanation relating to such cash credits, the assessee’s burden does not extend beyond proving the existence of the creditor and further proving that such creditor owns to have advanced the amount credited in the account of assessee to him.Hon’ble Calcutta High Court

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

263 of the Act on 31-3-2023 for the assessment year 2017-18 after making an addition under section 68

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

263 of the Act on 31-3-2023 for the assessment year 2017-18 after making an addition under section 68

AJIT SINGH,SHIVPURI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GWALIOR

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No 263/Agr/2025 is allowed

263 cannot be invoked for a mere difference of opinion or to start a fishing and roving inquiry. 2.7 The PCIT's conclusion that the AO made a "perfunctory reference (non-enquiry)" or showed "complete non-application of mind" is contrary to the record and based on a disagreement with the depth or nature of the inquiry conducted, which does

SH. SUNIL JAIN,GWALIOR vs. C.I.T., GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 263 of the Act: 2 ITA 132/Agra/2014 “1. While passing the order u/s 263, the learned CIT has wrongly directed Assessing Officer to add undisclosed sales of Rs.16,28,075/- u/s. 68

AKASH GOYAL,AGRA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

263 of the Act. 6 I.T.A No. 234/Agra/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 7.8 The last argument of the appellant (contained in his ground no. 1.3), is that the claim of deduction under section 57(iii) is less than the quantum of interest earned by the appellant and so no disallowance out of it can be made This argument

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

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and observed that the case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify capital introduced by the assessee amounting to Rs.2,35,09,650/-. It was observed that assessee filed return of income for AY 2015-16 at no capital and as per ITR filed

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

section 68 of the Act. AO converted limited\nscrutiny to complete scrutiny on 14.12.2017 and framed order on 28.12.2017.\nContention of the Assessee: Assessee submitted that AO enquired on\nunsecured loans prior to 14.12.2017, whereas he got approval on 14.12.2017\nand it is against the provision of the ACT.\nHeld:That the assessing officer has exceeded his jurisdiction

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)

263 (ITAT Delhi) ] (vii)CIT (Exemption) Vs M/s Moradabad Development Authority [ ITA No. 3 of 2017 dt. 03.05.2017 (High Court, Lucknow Bench)] (viii) Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs ACIT (E) [(2017) 83 Taxmann.com 78 ( High Court of Gujarat) (ix) Bangalore Development Authority ITAT Bang. ITA no. 1104 / Bang / 2017 & 1087 / Bang / 2017 (Relevant page 23 onwards) (x) Greater Noida Industrial

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)

263 (ITAT Delhi) ] (vii)CIT (Exemption) Vs M/s Moradabad Development Authority [ ITA No. 3 of 2017 dt. 03.05.2017 (High Court, Lucknow Bench)] (viii) Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs ACIT (E) [(2017) 83 Taxmann.com 78 ( High Court of Gujarat) (ix) Bangalore Development Authority ITAT Bang. ITA no. 1104 / Bang / 2017 & 1087 / Bang / 2017 (Relevant page 23 onwards) (x) Greater Noida Industrial

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)

263 (ITAT Delhi) ] (vii)CIT (Exemption) Vs M/s Moradabad Development Authority [ ITA No. 3 of 2017 dt. 03.05.2017 (High Court, Lucknow Bench)] (viii) Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs ACIT (E) [(2017) 83 Taxmann.com 78 ( High Court of Gujarat) (ix) Bangalore Development Authority ITAT Bang. ITA no. 1104 / Bang / 2017 & 1087 / Bang / 2017 (Relevant page 23 onwards) (x) Greater Noida Industrial

GINNI FILAMENTS LTD.,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 41(1) and consequential addition is highly arbitrary and not sustainable on facts and under the law. 3. That in any case, the outstanding balance of sundry creditors being of consequential nature and arising from trading transactions, the correctness and genuineness of which is not dispute, the entire basis of addition is patently misconceived and devoid of merits

MODERN AGENCIES,JHANSI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-6, JHANSI

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

68,184.63 Working of the excess stock valued at cost as declared by the assessee on the basis of the excess quantity of material found during survey and declared in the above Profit & Loss Account at Rs. 39,13,263/- is shown to have been computed by the assessee (appellant) as under— Physical statement date of survey taken by department