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

40,000/- through Cameo Corporate Services Ltd for allotment made for Initial Public Offer (IPO) on 15.03.2013. b. Payments for the same were made through regular banking channels. c. The shares were duly Dematted and was credited to the Demat account maintained by the assessee. d. The assessee through her broker Seema Securities Pvt. Ltd sold 2800 shares at different

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.”

40,35,700 surrendered by HMA on account of construction in Mewat) as received from its holding company namely HMA Agro Industries Limited, balance investment of Rs. 43,71,37,934/- has been added as unexplained expenditure of the assessee u/s 69C of the Act. A summary of order passed by the Ld. AO is as under:- Relevant page

AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AGRA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of IT Act, in view of decision of Hon'ble High court Allahabad in the case of CIT vs Victor Shipping services Pvt. Ltd. which is a orbiter dicta as per CBDT circular no. 10/V/2013 dated 16.12.2013. (v) That, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by deleting the addition

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 was to be restored to the file of the 7 Assessing Officer with direction to re-decide the issue of addition in the light of the additional evidences." 8. Considering the factual matrix of the case, we deem it fit and proper to restore the issue of assessee’s claim u/s 68

SANJANA GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO-WARD-2(3)(1) JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshsanjana Gupta, Vs. Ito, 130, Gudri Bazar, Jhansi Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Awbpg1536E Assessee By : Smt Prathna Jalan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R

40, 64, 800/-. The differential sum i.e. value determined by the ld DVO and the value reported by the assessee was sought to be added as income of the assessee under the head “income from capital gains” and the same was taxed @ 20% plus applicable taxes. 5. Before the ld JCIT(A), the assessee objected that assessee is only

ARJUN TRADING CO. PVT. LTD.,FIROZABAD vs. I.T.O.-5(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaarjun Trading Company Private Vs..Ito-5,(1), Ltd. A-4, Ganesh Nagar, Firozabad. Firozabad. Panno.Aadca7230J (Assessee) (Revenue)

section 68 of the Act, in respect of the following parties: Name of share applicants Share application money received J SINGH TRADING & INVESTMENT 500,000 PVT. LTD. 300,000 MODI ROAD LINES PVT, LTD. 300,000 VIKAS TAYAL 200,000 PERFORMANCE TRADING & 500,000 H.V. TRADERS PVT. LTD. 400,000 ABM ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES PVT. 250,000 LTD. ADISH JAIN

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

section 50C and the same is reproduced as under: - Name of the Amount of Stamp Amount Sale Proportionate vendee total sale registration considered amount stamp value consideration value for received for assesse computing by the capital gain assesse 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sanjeev Kumar

KAMLA ASSOCIATES,SHEOPUR vs. ACIT-3(1), GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshkamla Associates, Vs. Acit, Pali Road, Sheopur, Circle-3(1), Mp Gwalior Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaffk5366A Assessee By : Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17/03/2026

68 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained cash credits in respect of advances received against sale of tractors. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a dealer of tractors and its spare parts which are Kamla Associates purchased by agriculturists and farmers. The return of income

ANUPAM MITTAL,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

40,000/- made on account of disallowance of payment of interest) without properly appreciating the facts brought on record by the Appellant during the course of assessment and appellate proceedings. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) (NFAC) has grossly misconceived the provisions of 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

68 read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act,\n1961 - Cash credit (Gift) Assessment years 2007-08 and\n2008-09 - Assessee received certain amount as gifts from\nhis father and sister who were non-residents in India\nAssessing Officer after making detailed enquiries, took a\nview that assessee had duly proved identity, source and\ncreditworthiness of donors Commissioner

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

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

68,625/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Id AO proceeded to examine the veracity of purchases made by the Assessee. The Assessee furnished the list of parties from whom it had made purchases. The Assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacture and export of frozen meat, hide, MBM, poultry feed, tallow etc., from

M/S SURAJHBAN OILS PVT.LTD,MORENA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL CIRCLE), GWALIOR

Appeals is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalita No. 45/Agr./2022 (Assessment Year 2017-18)

Section 68 unexplained cash credit additions of Rs.80.60 lacs in the assessee’s hands, in the course of assessment framed on 28.12.2019 and upheld by the CIT(A) as under: “4.1 Ground Nos. 1 and 2:- Through these grounds of appeal, the appellant has challenged the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 80,60,000/- on account

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)

68,625/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld AO proceeded to examine the veracity of purchases made by the Assessee. The Assessee furnished the list of parties from whom it had made purchases. The Assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacture and export of frozen meat, hide, MBM, poultry feed, tallow etc., from

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALIGARH vs. JAI BANKEY BIHARI PERFUMERS PVT. LTD., HATHRAS

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

40 & 41/Agr/2023 for assessment years 2016-17 and 2018-19, arise against the Commissioner ITA Nos.40 & 41 with CO No. 01/Agr/2023 of Income Tax(Appeals)-4 [in short the “CIT(A)], Kanpur’s separate orders in Appeal Nos. CIT(A)-IV/KNP/10690/2015-16 and CIT(A)- IV/KNP/10982/2017-18, both dated 27.12.2022, involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALIGARH vs. JAI BANKEY BIHARI PERFUMERS PVT. LTD, HATHRAS

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

40 & 41/Agr/2023 for assessment years 2016-17 and 2018-19, arise against the Commissioner ITA Nos.40 & 41 with CO No. 01/Agr/2023 of Income Tax(Appeals)-4 [in short the “CIT(A)], Kanpur’s separate orders in Appeal Nos. CIT(A)-IV/KNP/10690/2015-16 and CIT(A)- IV/KNP/10982/2017-18, both dated 27.12.2022, involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. CHITAVALSAH JUTE MILLS LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Acit, Vs. Chitavalasah Jute Mills Ltd, Range-1, 73-74, 201, Sheetala House, Faridabad Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccc6834D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

40% of this amount being Rs 11,90,27,242. I am in agreement with the submissions of the assessee that most of the amounts of sundry creditor balance has remained unchanged as compared to the last year, However, in the first round before the learned Commissioner, the learned CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs 49,72,098, Chitavalasah

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