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

46A of the IT Rules is hereby dismissed. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that despite all the contemporaneous documentary evidences placed on record by the assessee before the learned AO by proving the nature and source of credit within the meaning of section 68

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 by the appellant under Rule 46A

MADHURI JAISWAL,GWALIOR, MADHYA PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT 3(1), GWL, GWALIOR, MADHYAPRADESH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

section 68 cannot be applied in respect of income from a source which has already been taxed which would amount to double taxation, Gross Receipt from business has been accepted by assessing officer during the course of assessment, never rejected the books of account as well as no any expenses were disallowed of PL. account whereas case was selected

OM PRAKASH BANWANI,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1,GWALIOR, GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Om Parkash Banwani, Vs. Acit, Harkota Seer, Girwi Circle-1, Gwalior Naka, Ab Road, Gwalior, (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Abdpv8742J Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025

Section 68 of the Act in respect of loans Om Parkash Banwani received which was subject matter of addition u/s 68 of the Act. This goes to the root of the matter and hence we proceed to address the same first. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee had filed

ACIT-CIRCEL-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. MAYANK AGRAWAL, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

68 and 69 of the paper book which contains information obtained by Smt. NeetuNayyar from Central Public Information Officer who is none other than the ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-S, New Delhi, under Right to Information Act, wherein, it reveals that the ld. Addl. CIT had granted approval for 43 cases on 30.12.2018 itself. This fact

VISHWAMBHAR DAYAL AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

68 and 69 of the paper book which contains information obtained by Smt. NeetuNayyar from Central Public Information Officer who is none other than the ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-S, New Delhi, under Right to Information Act, wherein, it reveals that the ld. Addl. CIT had granted approval for 43 cases on 30.12.2018 itself. This fact

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA vs. SH. VISHWAMBHAR DAYAL AGARWAL, AGRA

68 and 69 of the\npaper book which contains information obtained by Smt.\nNeetuNayyar from Central Public Information Officer who is none\nother than the ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central\nRange-S, New Delhi, under Right to Information Act, wherein, it\nreveals that the ld. Addl. CIT had granted approval for 43 cases on\n30.12.2018 itself. This fact

ACIT-CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. PUNEET AGARWAL, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

68 and 69 of the paper book which contains information obtained by Smt. NeetuNayyar from Central Public Information Officer who is none other than the ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-S, New Delhi, under Right to Information Act, wherein, it reveals that the ld. Addl. CIT had granted approval for 43 cases on 30.12.2018 itself. This fact

M/S DEEPRAJ HOSPITAL P LTD,HATHRAS vs. ITO 3(5), HATHRAS

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

68 of the I. T. Act could legally be made. 7. Because under the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position the addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. 8. That the appellant craves to add, amend, alter, modify or delete any or all of the grounds of appeal

M/S CHARAN SINGH ICE & STORAGE P LTD,HATHRAS vs. ITO 3(5), HATHRAS

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

68 of the I. T. Act could legally be made. 7. Because under the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position the addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. 8. That the appellant craves to add, amend, alter, modify or delete any or all of the grounds of appeal

SMT. NEETA SHARMA,AGRA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2007-08

46A of the I.T. Rules on one hand and taking its authenticity as not established-oil other hand, and in the peculiar facts of ;r opportunity of being heard not given by the A.O. 2. Because in any view, the addition made and confirmed by Id. CIT(A) of Rs.10,70,553/- out of total addition of Rs.85

A.C.I.T.-2, AGRA vs. SMT. NEETA SHARMA PROP., AGRA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2007-08

46A of the I.T. Rules on one hand and taking its authenticity as not established-oil other hand, and in the peculiar facts of ;r opportunity of being heard not given by the A.O. 2. Because in any view, the addition made and confirmed by Id. CIT(A) of Rs.10,70,553/- out of total addition of Rs.85

MODERN AGENCIES,JHANSI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-6, JHANSI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly

68,184.63 Working of the excess stock valued at cost as declared by the assessee on the basis of the excess quantity of material found during survey and declared in the above Profit & Loss Account at Rs. 39,13,263/- is shown to have been computed by the assessee (appellant) as under— Physical statement date of survey taken by department

ACIT CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. SHARMA & ASSOCIATES FIRETECH PVT LTD, GWALIOR

In the result, we do not find any error as the assessee has failed to establish the

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2010-11

46A. Since there is no ground raised before us whereby the assessee has challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) for rejecting the application for filing the additional document/evidence, in our view the assessee does not deserve any indulgence from this Tribunal. Accordingly, the Ground No.1 of cross objection is dismissed. Besides the above, we are of the opinionthat