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

68 of the Act, vide assessment order dated 23.12.2019, passed under Sections 147/143(3) of the Act. 5. Aggrievedby

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

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

section 144 i.e. ‘Best Judgment Assessment.’ 3. The assessment of income as per discussion above is framed below: “a. The value of phyiscial stock taken on date of survey was Rs.1,30,14,587/-. The partner of the firms, Sh. Mukesh Agarwal in his statement on the date of survey was confronted with this stock inventory which was taken

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

3)", "Section 148", "Section 40A(2b)", "Section 131", "Section 147", "Section 68", "Section 115BBE

KNP ASSOCIATES,AGRA vs. WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshknp Associates, Vs. Acit, 10, Panchwati Colony, Circle-1, Vinay Nagar, Bodla, Agra Nashik (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaufk5403H Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Molhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

68,988. c) A R Traders – PAN – AAXFA5707F As per the copy of account submitted by the Assessee, the total sales made to this party was Rs. 33,69,531 and the closing balance was Rs. 1,12,445. In response to the notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act, the party submitted the copy

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)

Section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business

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)

Section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business

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)

Section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business

VERMA SERVICE STATION,FIROZABAD vs. ACIT, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 68 has to be understood together as a requirement of identification of the source and the nature of the source, so that the genuineness or otherwise could be inferred. 5.6.2 The onus does not get discharged merely by such confirmatory letters as found in CIT Vs. United Commercial and Industrial

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

3. BECAUSE, while confirming the addition the Ld. CIT(A) was highly unjustified in holding that if books are not maintained presumptive rate of 8% should have been applied by the AO ignoring the fact on records that appellant has maintained Books of Accounts which are audited and as such case do not fall under the provisions of section

JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL HUF,AGRA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

68, read with section 115BBE of the Act and added 2 | P a g e the same to the total income declared by the assessee, vide assessment order dated 29.12.2019 passed under section 143(3

SMT. GARIMA MEHTA,GWALIOR vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(2), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

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

3(1) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The Scheme is administered by the Government of India in the Department of Electronics. It is administered through the directors of respective Software Technology Parks of India, a society established by the Department of Electronics. 28. Section 10A of the IT Act requires, in Explanation-2 (vii), that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA vs. ALNOOR EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

3 raised by the assessee are challenging the confirmation of disallowance of purchases made by the assessee.\n3. We have heard the Id DR and perused the materials available on record. The return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 was filed by the Assessee declaring total income of Rs 8,68,68,625/-. During the course of assessment

RISHAV SHELTERS P LTD,AGRA vs. JCIT RANGE-4 , AGRA

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

section 145(3)— Assessee did not produce complete bills and vouchers of expenses claimed, therefore, it was reasonable and appropriate for CIT(A) to hold that prof it rate of 6 percent was fair and reasonable for purpose of computing business income of assessee—AO had applied exorbitant and unreasonable profit rate of12.5 percent without considering history of assessee

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

3) read with section 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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

3) of the Act on 29-12-2019 determining total income at Rs 25,60,360/- after making addition of Rs 25,44,579/- on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68

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

3 | P a g e 2. Ground No. 2: That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by upholding the addition of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- under section 68

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA vs. ALNOOR EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

3. We have heard the ld DR and perused the materials available on record. The return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 was filed by the Assessee declaring total income of Rs 8,68,68,625/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld AO proceeded to examine the veracity of purchases made by the Assessee. The Assessee