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

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

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.

1 to Section 263 of the Act provides that when an appeal is pending before the Commissioner, the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act by CIT is barred. Thus, in the present case, the CIT wrongly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act by remanding back the matter to assessing authority

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.

1 to Section 263 of the Act provides that when an appeal is pending before the Commissioner, the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act by CIT is barred. Thus, in the present case, the CIT wrongly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act by remanding back the matter to assessing authority

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

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

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

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

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

68 of the Act. 12. The Ld. CIT(A) during the course of hearing of the appeal after receipt of written submission filed by the assessee sought further evidences from the assessee pertaining to the advance so received from M/s Easyway Solutions (P) Ltd, which were partly brought on records, Ld. CIT(A) referred the matter to the learned Assessing

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

1) of the Act dated 24-3-2023 was also issued to the Assessee company affording final opportunity to the Assessee.The Assessee submitted its reply dated 27-3-2023 and 28-3-2023 before the Learned AO. The Learned AO framed the set-aside assessment under section 143 (3) read with section 263

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

1) of the Act dated 24-3-2023 was also issued to the Assessee company affording final opportunity to the Assessee.The Assessee submitted its reply dated 27-3-2023 and 28-3-2023 before the Learned AO. The Learned AO framed the set-aside assessment under section 143 (3) read with section 263

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

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

1 - The PCIT has gone beyond its jurisdiction and has made observations on the merits of the case 1.1 The Appellant submits that the PCIT under Section 263 was only required to see whether the Assessment order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the Ld. ITO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. However, in the present case

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

GOVIND SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

68 of the IT Act. The first appeal filed by the appellant assessee was dismissed by the ld CIT(A), vide impugned order dated 07.07.2025, against which this second appeal. 6. As regards the preliminary issue raised through the additional ground noted hereinabove, the approval granted by the ld PCIT-1-(Agra) in terms of section

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

1), Civil Lines, Agra. Agra. PAN: ABVPG6220A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Navin Gargh, Adv. Respondent by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 10.10.2019 Date of Pronouncement 04.11.2019 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. MEENA, A. M.: This appeal is directed by the assessee against the order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-1, Agra

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