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

68 of the Act. Learned AR of the assessee has filed a detailed written submission, which reads as under : “Reopening proceedings u/s. 147, being based on mere change of opinion and the notice u/s. 148 dated 13.09.2018, having been issued beyond the period of four years from the end of the A.Y. 2013-14, are ab initio

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

68 of the Act. Learned AR of the assessee has filed a detailed written submission, which reads as under : “Reopening proceedings u/s. 147, being based on mere change of opinion and the notice u/s. 148 dated 13.09.2018, having been issued beyond the period of four years from the end of the A.Y. 2013-14, are ab initio

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

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 of the Act. 12. The Ld. CIT(A) during the course of hearing of the appeal after receipt of written submission filed by the assessee sought further evidences from the assessee pertaining to the advance so received from M/s Easyway Solutions (P) Ltd, which were partly brought on records, Ld. CIT(A) referred the matter to the learned Assessing

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

50 SOT 537 f. CIT V. Sri, SambandamUdaykumar Income Tax Appeal No. 175 of 2012 (Karnataka High high Court) g. Smt. Usha Vaid v. ITO [2012] 53 SOT 385 (Amritsar) h. Narasimha Raju Rudra Raju v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8 (1) [2013] 35 taxmann.com 90 (Hyderabad -Trib.) Copies of above Judgments were also filed before

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 of the Act in the hands of the firm. Similarly, if an assessee, who is a partner in the partnership firm, has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account maintained by him for any source of income and the explanation given by the partner or individual regarding source of deposits is disbelieved, then

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

50,645/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act on the ground that assessee could have incurred commission expenditure @ 3% for seeking accommodation entries. This action of the ld Assessing Officer was upheld by the ld CIT(A). 5. It is not in dispute that assessee has not maintained any books of account and is not obligated to maintain

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 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) NFAC considered and appreciated the realisation of the sale consideration in the bank account of the appellant with reference to information collated as per Annexure 6 to the submissions, providing detail of Artwork and price, Invoice of consignment

AMIT GANDHI,GWALIOR vs. BPL-W-(41)-(91), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhamit Gandhi, Vs. Faceless Assessment Unit, Parking No. 4, Main Delhi Road Transport Nagar, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Afdpg7862E Assessee By : Shri Vishal Gupta, Ca Shri Anant Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2026

50,000 made under Section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as unexplained cash credit in respect of loans

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.”

50,000. Though the explanation regarding the cash credit entries was found to be false, the Appellate Tribunal held that these cash credits could not represent the income or profits of the assessee as they were all made very soon after the company commenced its activities: Held, that the inference drawn from the facts proved was a question of fact

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

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)

50,000/-as above is chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment and notice u/s 148 may be issued to the assessee after prior approval of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Agra." 9. Per contra, the learned D.R.ShriWaseemArshad, at the outset objected to the submissions made by the learnedA.R and stated that since assessee had not challenged

HARSH SALUJA,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 68 and to that extent the order sheet entry was to be treated as notice for enhancement of income. 5.3.2 Inspite of further opportunities provided to the assessee to file these documentary evidence for carrying business/ trading in Gillet ornaments on 19.1.16, 29.1.16, 3.2.16 and 4.2.16, assessee could not furnish any details. 5.3.3 It is an accepted legal

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), GWALIOR vs. B.P. EDIBLE OIL PVT LTD, GWALIOR

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2011-12

68 of the IT Act, 1961 as unexplained credits.” 3.1 Thereafter, the Commissioner discussed the order passed by the Assessing Officer and reproduced the order in para 5.1.5 to 5.6 as under : “5.1.5. Now, from the discussion in the assessment order, it would appear that the Assessing Officer has disbelieved the genuineness of the transactions in respect of receipt

SHARAD MAHESHWARI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), GWALIOR (M. P.), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sharad Maheshwari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, W-63, 3Rd Floor, Ward-3(2), Greater Kailash-2, Gwalior South Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Afepa7981H Assessee By : Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

Section 68 of the Act for not proving the creditworthiness of the donor. 5. With regard to gift received from Smt Manju Agarwal, sister of the assessee in the sum of Rs 6,25,000/-, the assessee submitted that the said amount was transferred by Smt Manju Agarwal out of her personal funds accumulated in the bank account

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]

section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is hereby confirmed and the ground no. 1,2 and 6 are decided in negative and against the appellant.” 4.1. Similarly, the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the disallowance of interest of Rs.2,40,000/- on the loan of Rs.71,08,000/- by observing in para no.5.1 and 5.2 as under

AJIT SINGH,SHIVPURI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GWALIOR

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No 263/Agr/2025 is allowed

50,420/- and agricultural income of Rs. 9,75,240/-. Assessment proceedings were completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, accepting the returned income vide assessment order dated 22.12.2017. 3. Ld PCIT, while exercising revisional powers vested in him u/s. 263 of the Act, passed original revisional order dated 26.03.2020 and observed that assessee had taken advance

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