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 can be validly made after rejecting the books of account as the credits pertains to same set of books which had been held unreliable by the learned ‘AO’ while framing assessment. 7. BECAUSE, alternatively, in any view of the matter, entire addition of Rs.3,00,00,000/- cannot have been validly made as the same is liable

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.”

34 of the Evidence Act. It is only where the entries are in the books of account regularly kept. depending on the nature of occupation, that those are admissible; (ii) As to the value of entries in the books of account. such statement shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability, even if they are relevant

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

34,08,000 x 68,67,586 = Rs. 53,19,502 1,73,10,000 For computing the total cost of property sold, purchase cost of land should be added in the proportionate cost of construction as computed above. The total value of cost of purchase is computed as under: - Cost of land (7flats) + proportionate cost of construction (7flats

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)

Section 68. Further reliance to “A. GovindarajuluMudaliarVs CIT”,(Supra) 28. reported in (1958) 34 ITR 0807(S.C) is misplaced

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.”

68 of the Act after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. No doubt, assessee shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A). All the plea in law shall be available to the assessee. 8 In the Ground No.2,the assessee’s grievance is that the CIT(A) 9. has illegally and arbitrary confirmed

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

The appeal stand partly allowed

68 for want of sufficiency of documents. The Ld.\nCIT(A) confirmed the addition on the ground that the assessee failed to\nestablish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the\ntransactions. The assessee failed to provide complete details of\ncustomers as well as confirmations. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further\nappeal before us.\n3.2 It could be seen that

SURESH CHAND GUPTA,JHANSI vs. DCIT-6, JHANSI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

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

34,000/- escaped assessment in the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act. So, Notice u/s 148 is being issued in this case.” 12. In the original assessment the AO has assessed income of the assessee in the following manner (refer para 4.1 of AO’s order). Rs. 68

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), GWALIOR vs. B.P. EDIBLE OIL PVT LTD, GWALIOR

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2011-12

34,125/- (b). Creditors amounting to Rs.1,31,15,424/- (4). The assessee has shown income of Rs.5,32,602/- even when gross receipts of the company has increased from 7,16,66,316/- to Rs.12,79,02,891/- which requires detailed verification. 2.1 The assessee was called upon by the AO to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness

VEENA SINGH,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

34,213/-. However, as the original return was filed belatedly under Section 139(4), the Assessing Officer observed that the revised return so filed was not acceptable. Further notice under Section 142(1) with a detailed questionnaire dated 14.12.2017 issued by Assessing Officer, went unanswered. The Assessing Officer, based on discrepancies and lack of explanations, made the following

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

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

SHARDA OIL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. JURISDICTIONAL OFFICER,CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA

In the result all the appeals filed by the

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sharda Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Circle-2(1)(1), 17, Tundla Road, Nunhai Agrau.P. Agrau.P. Pan: Aaecs1396L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Prem Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Dcit/Acit, Circle-1(1) Kanwal Complex, B-32, A.G. Office Gwalior M.P. Road, Gwalior M.P. 474001 Pan: Aabcp2035Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Karam Udyog Vs. Jo Circle - 1(1)(1) 9, Gailana Road Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Abbfk0897L (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,583 being employers' contribution under section 43B of the Act. Felt aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who decided the same vide orders dated 15-7-2005. Though the CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee that if the payment is made before the due date of filing of return

PREM MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,GWALIOR vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER ,DCIT/ACIT,CIRCLE1(1), GWALIOR

In the result all the appeals filed by the

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sharda Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Circle-2(1)(1), 17, Tundla Road, Nunhai Agrau.P. Agrau.P. Pan: Aaecs1396L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Prem Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Dcit/Acit, Circle-1(1) Kanwal Complex, B-32, A.G. Office Gwalior M.P. Road, Gwalior M.P. 474001 Pan: Aabcp2035Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Karam Udyog Vs. Jo Circle - 1(1)(1) 9, Gailana Road Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Abbfk0897L (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,583 being employers' contribution under section 43B of the Act. Felt aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who decided the same vide orders dated 15-7-2005. Though the CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee that if the payment is made before the due date of filing of return

KARAM UDHOG,AGRA vs. J.A.O., DY. CIT.., CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result all the appeals filed by the

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sharda Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Circle-2(1)(1), 17, Tundla Road, Nunhai Agrau.P. Agrau.P. Pan: Aaecs1396L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Prem Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Dcit/Acit, Circle-1(1) Kanwal Complex, B-32, A.G. Office Gwalior M.P. Road, Gwalior M.P. 474001 Pan: Aabcp2035Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Karam Udyog Vs. Jo Circle - 1(1)(1) 9, Gailana Road Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Abbfk0897L (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,583 being employers' contribution under section 43B of the Act. Felt aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who decided the same vide orders dated 15-7-2005. Though the CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee that if the payment is made before the due date of filing of return

HIND LAMPS LTD.,,FIROZABAD vs. CPC., BENGALURU/ JAO., CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

In the result all the appeals filed by the

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Circle – 2(1)(2) Pushpanjali Palace Delhi Gate Sanjay Place, Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Aacck7160L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Banmoreelecticals Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit Behind Park Hotel, Moti Mahal, Road City Centre Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. Pan: Aabcb4242M (Respondent) (Appellant)

68,583 being employers' contribution under section 43B of the Act. Felt aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who decided the same vide orders dated 15-7-2005. Though the CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee that if the payment is made before the due date of filing of return

BANMORE ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD.,GWALIOR vs. DY.CIT., GWALIOR

In the result all the appeals filed by the

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Circle – 2(1)(2) Pushpanjali Palace Delhi Gate Sanjay Place, Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Aacck7160L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Banmoreelecticals Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit Behind Park Hotel, Moti Mahal, Road City Centre Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. Pan: Aabcb4242M (Respondent) (Appellant)

68,583 being employers' contribution under section 43B of the Act. Felt aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who decided the same vide orders dated 15-7-2005. Though the CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee that if the payment is made before the due date of filing of return

GANESH CHANDRA AGARWAL,FIROZABAD vs. ITO.,WARD 2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

In the result all the appeals filed by the

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Circle – 2(1)(2) Pushpanjali Palace Delhi Gate Sanjay Place, Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Aacck7160L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Banmoreelecticals Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit Behind Park Hotel, Moti Mahal, Road City Centre Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. Pan: Aabcb4242M (Respondent) (Appellant)

68,583 being employers' contribution under section 43B of the Act. Felt aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who decided the same vide orders dated 15-7-2005. Though the CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee that if the payment is made before the due date of filing of return