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.”

45 ITD 12 (Bang.) - DCIT vs. Krorilal Aggarwal (1994) 50 TTJ (Jab.) 393 - M.V. Mathew vs. ITO (1993) 46 TTJ 353 (Coch.) - ITO vs. W.D. Estate (P.) Ltd. (1993) 46 TTJ (Bom.) 143 - Delhi ITAT in case of Shri Neeraj Goel vs. ACIT in ITA No.5951/.Del/2017 vide order dated 21.03.2018 - Mumabi ITAT in the case of ITO vs. Kranti Impex

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

JOURA CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MORENA, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO, MORENA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19 Joura Co-Operative Marketing Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Society Limited Ward-1, Morena The Joura Dist Morena Dist. Morena Pan :Aabaj1828K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S. N. Agarwal, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Order

45,025/- . In response, the assessee filed a reply which is reproduced by the Assessing Officer at page 8 & 9 of the assessment order. After considering the submissions, Assessing Officer observed that the transactions carried 2 | P a g e out by the assessee are frequent and multiples of varied amounts and pertaining to payments/received from various parties and also

NALANDA BUILDERS &DVELOPERS I P LTD,AGRA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

68 of the Income Tax Act, The penalty imposed by the AO, enhanced by the CIT (Appeals) is against the provisions of Section 271AAB(1)(b)/271AAB(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, same are liable to be cancelled. 4. That while enhancing the penalty, the CIT (Appeals) has not allowed the proper opportunity to the appellant for filing

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed”

Bench: The Learned Cit (A).

45,000/ in Account No 0344104000025267 with ICICI Bank and Rs. 25,000/- in Account No 344104000005388 with IDBI Bank, aggregating to Rs. 8,70,000/-. The Assessing officer was of the opinion that the assessee had failed to prove that the above cash deposit represented his business turnover. An addition of Rs. 7,99,950/- was made under section

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

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

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

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

BIPIN BABU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.149/Agr/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Bipin Babu Agarwal Dcit / Acit बनाम/ 16, Kamla Vihar Colony Central Circle Vs. Masani, Mathura 281 001 Agra "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpa-0864-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri M. M. Agrawal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kanpur-4 [Cit(A)] Dated 28-06-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 30-09-2021. Having Heard Vehement Arguments Of Both The Sides & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. During The Year, The Assessee Being Resident Individual Carried Out Business Activities In Proprietorship Concern Namely M/S Parshant Silver Handicrafts. Assessment Proceedings 2.1 The Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Scrutinized Pursuant To Search Action On R.S. Bullion & Jewellers Group Of Cases At Mathura

68 of IT Act since the source of cash deposited in the bank without informing to the search team could not be satisfactorily explained and the explanation given by the appellant that the same was out of sales proceeds, was not found as genuine by the AO. 6.11 In the assessment as well as appellate proceedings, the AR tried

MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL,FARRUKHABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4(2)(1) FARRUKHABAD, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

45,54,880/- 2. In this case, the election affidavit dated 30/03/2019 filed by Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal with ECI was verified as per provisions of SOP issued by CBDT on 20/03/2019. During verification, it was found that for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee had a llability of Rs. 1,23,46,358/- in form of Unsecured Loans

MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL,FARUKHABAD vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

45,54,880/- 2. In this case, the election affidavit dated 30/03/2019 filed by Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal with ECI was verified as per provisions of SOP issued by CBDT on 20/03/2019. During verification, it was found that for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee had a llability of Rs. 1,23,46,358/- in form of Unsecured Loans

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

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

68,605/-, on account of under section 69A of the IT Act, without appreciating the fact of the case that amount of Rs 57.68,605/- debited by the bank but not found recorded in the books of account of the assessee. (vii) That, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.36

KRISHNA KUMAR GUPTA,ETAH vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

45,681/- out of total turnover of Rs.10,70,72,753/-. Based on the information received from insight portal, case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act on the basis of verification suspicious transaction report dated 26.02.2020 uploaded by ADIT (Inv.) Aligarh and investigation regarding cash deposit/bank credits in the bank account of assessee was made with

SH SANJAY BANSAL ,MORENA vs. A.C.I.T (CENTRAL), GWALIOR

In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed

Bench: learned CIT(Appeals) who has very exhaustively passed the impugned order in 60 pages and considered all the submissions of the assessee in the tabulated form and otherwise, which need not to be repeated again for the sake of brevity. However, learned CIT(Appeals) partly allowed assessee's appeal confirming the addition only to the extent of Rs.71,44,045/- as against addition of Rs.91,06,669/-. 4. Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds : "1.Because in any view, th

68 to 73 of paper book) and sale bills (page no. 74 to 82 of paper book). On perusal of purchase bills, it has been found that various purchases of grains were made in cash. The appellant vide this office letter date 24.11.2021 was asked to submit the explanation that why such purchases should not be disallowed

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

45,839/-, the AO worked out the income at Rs.7,61,255/-. 12. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the nature of business in both the businesses of the assessee, i.e., domestic and exports, was the same, since in both the businesses, the assessee was dealing in software development. The assessment order, applying the net profit rate