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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

44,579/- on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68. This addition was taxed at 60% under 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

44,13,240/- after making addition of Rs. 2,43,07,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit in bank beside other addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 80C of the Act. 3. Assessee preferred appeal before ld CIT(A), who partly allowed assessee’s appeal by deleting the addition

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.”

section 68 and there was no cogent reason to interfere with same merely because on a reappraisal of entire matter, it might have been possible to form a different opinion - Held, yes.” 8. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the assessee is incorporated on 21.05.2018, in order to manufacture meat and meat products

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)

44-AB of the Act and statement showing computation of income were filed by the petitioner. Subsequent thereto, notices for reassessment for these two years were issued by the learned Assessing Officer on the ground that the income has escaped assessment to tax……..”. Therefore, the case is distinguishable on facts. 25. Learned Sr. D.R has placed reliance to Sri Banarsi

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 68 of the Income Tac Act, the inclusion of the impugned amount in the assessee’s income was justified.” In view of the above ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned case law (marked in bold), it is immaterial whether the company, M/s. Techman Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Has declared the sale proceeds

AMIT JAIN,FIROZABAD vs. ITO-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed”

Bench: The Learned Cit (A).

44(1), Kolkata. The assessment therefore is void ab initio and a nullity. 2.1. Because, the authorities below were highly unjustified in making and sustaining addition of Rs. 8,70,000/- ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case and material evidences suggesting that the same represents turnover of the assessee from glass bangle business. 2.2. Because, the rejection

SH MANOJ KUMAR VERMA,MAINPURI vs. ITO WARD-4(2)(4), MAINPURI

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

44,28,500/- only on sale of petroleum products during\nthe demonetization period and hence there is a difference of Rs\n44,39,500/- in high old currency notes which were deposited by the\nassessee in his bank account. The assessee submitted that the remaining\nsum represent recoveries made in Specified Bank Notes from old debtors\nduring the demonetization period

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

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

44 AD had no relevance—Assessee had not filed any P&L or balance sheet for relevant AYs along with returns—Even vouchers given by assessee were defective—CIT (A) mainly scaled down such estimate for reason that in earlier AY 3.69% of turnover was considered to be appropriate for assessment—Assessee had no materials to produce in support

ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DCIT 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Anil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dy. Cit, 44, R. S. Residency, Circle-2(1)(1), Dayal Bagh, Agra, Up Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aampa3335J Assessee By : Shri Rajni Kant Verma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

44, R. S. Residency, Circle-2(1)(1), Dayal Bagh, Agra, UP Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAMPA3335J Assessee by : Shri Rajni Kant Verma, Adv Revenue by: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date of pronouncement 19/11/2025 O R D E R 1. The appeal in ITA No. 101/AGR/2025 for AY 2011-12, arises out of the order

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

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

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. 68,96,44

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

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

M/S SHIVHARE ROADLINES,GWALIOR vs. JT. C.I.T., RANGE-2, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

44,871/- of revenue expenditure under head office repair and maintenance considering it as capital expenditure.” In the 1st ground of appeal the assessee challenged the disallowance 4. of Rs. 46,80,814/- on account of alleged excess depreciation claimed at the rate of 30% instead of allowable depreciation of 15% on Trucks and Trailers. 4.1 It is seen that