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

4 | P a g e ITA No.344 & 343/Agr/2025 proposal of the Assessing Officer, which vitiates the entire proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act. 3. Because the learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of 718,23,00,000/- under section 68

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

4. source of capital introduction of Rs.92,00,000/- and hence the same was again treated as unaccounted income of the assessee under section 68

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)

4. The appellant assessee has raised following grounds under this second appeal: “1. That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, learned authorities below have been arbitrary, wrong, and illegal in making addition of Rs. 33,00,923 under section 68

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

4 is partly allowed. 11. Vide Ground of Appeal No. 5, assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining addition of Rs.3,00,00,000/- under section 68

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

4, 5 and 6] [In favour of assessee]\nii).\nReliance is being placed on the judgment of CIT Vs. Nirav\nModi, 77 Taxmann.com 15 (SC), in which, it has been held as\nunder:-\n“Section 68

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

4) The amount of the net consideration which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of the new asset made within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset took place, or which is not utilised by him for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing

SOURABH KUMAR SONI,ASHOKNAGAR (M.P) vs. ITO - ASHOKNAGAR, ASHOKNAGAR

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act." It is requested that the above grounds now being taken as additional legal grounds No. 9,10 and 11 may kindly be admitted and obliged.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that as per information available with the Assessing Officer on AIMS Module of ITBA, it was observed by the Assessing

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),AGRA, AGRA vs. EMCO EXPORTS, AGRA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

68 ITR 457] it was pointed out that if the payment made by the resident to the non-resident was an amount which was not chargeable to tax in India, then no tax is deductible at source even though the assessee had not made an application under Section 18(3B) (now Section

B K KESHARWANI, AGRA vs. MADHUR MITTAL, AGRA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ld Cit(A), Who Partly Allowed

4. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the transactions claimed by the assessee are entirely in cash, unsupported by banking channels which inherently makes the claim unverifiable and doubtful, and the burden of proof under section 68

LOKENDRA KUMAR GAUTAM,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD, 1(3)(2), MATHURA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

4 | P a g e account. In the absence of any such adverse finding, the presumption that the cash re-deposited emanated from unexplained sources is wholly unwarranted. Therefore, it was contended that the addition made 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

4. We find that the assessee is aggrieved only on the levy of surcharge of 25% on the enhanced rate of tax at 60% as per section 115BBE of the Act in the present appellate proceedings before us. The quantum appeal against the addition made under section 68

PRADEEP JAIN LEGAL HEIR OF JAY NARAYAN,FIROZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(2), FIROZABAD

sections": [ "147", "68", "2(29)", "2(11)", "159(4)" ], "issues": "Whether the appellant, treated as a \"legal heir\", was correctly

NEETA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Neeta Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-23, New Agra, Agra Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpa0936E Assessee By : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

section 68 was not applicable. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner

M/S VERMA SERVICE STATION,FIROZABAD vs. D.C.I.T., RANGE-5, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 68 and added to the total income of the assessee. In the 2nd round of assessment,the assessee again could not explain the 4

ACIT, C 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA vs. SUNIL KUMAR JOSHAN, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhacit, Vs. Sunil Kumar Joshan, Foot On Shoes, 7Th Circle-2(1)(1), Agra Km Stone, Agra Delhi Bye Pass Road, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abqpj4015P Co 07/Agr/2025 (In Ita No.494/Agr/2025) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sunil Kumar Joshan, Vs. Acit, Foot On Shoes, 7Th Km Circle-2(1)(1), Stone, Agra Delhi Bye Agra Pass Road, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abqpj4015P

68 read with section 115BBE of the Act without conducting any enquiries on his side. The following are the documentary evidences submitted by the assessee before the Learned AO to prove the nature and source of credit of the aforesaid sums:- Sl Particulars PB No. Page No. 1 Invitation letter of PHI Singapore dated 28.08.2012 with enclosures

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

4. The ld AO merely placed reliance on the Kolkata Investigation Wing Report, which investigated 84 scrips by categorizing the same as penny stock where the price of shares were artificially rigged abnormally in connivance with certain entry providers/promoters, etc with a view to give undue benefit of exemption of long-term capital gains or short-term capital loss

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

PRADEEP JAIN LEGAL HIER OF JAY NARAYAN,FIROZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(2),, FIROZABAD

68 unexplained cash deposits/credits\nin his hands, involving varying sums, respectively in his hands.\n4.\nThis being the clinching backdrop involved herein, we sought\nto know from the Revenue side as to whether this appellant Sh.\nPradip Jain has succeeded to the estate of the deceased assessee\nor not so as to be held as the “legal representative” as defined