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

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, MORENA vs. SHRI AGRASEN LOGISTICS, JOTAI ROAD, PORSA,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 68 in respect of unexplained cash credits even when the assessee had failed to prove the creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions. 2. In the assessment orders the Assessing Officer (AO) has made a detailed discussion in pages 3 to 7 and concluded that the assessee had failed to prove the capacity of the lenders

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)

50 Itr 495 Mad high court affirmed by supreme court Kalinga Tubes ltd 218 itr 164 Supreme court A statutory liability arises at the stage of obligation to pay , irrespective of the whether it is disputed .Thus an assessee following a mercantile system of accounting ould be eligible for deduction simply on the accrual of the liability

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)

50 Itr 495 Mad high court affirmed by supreme court Kalinga Tubes ltd 218 itr 164 Supreme court A statutory liability arises at the stage of obligation to pay , irrespective of the whether it is disputed .Thus an assessee following a mercantile system of accounting ould be eligible for deduction simply on the accrual of the liability

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)

50 Itr 495 Mad high court affirmed by supreme court Kalinga Tubes ltd 218 itr 164 Supreme court A statutory liability arises at the stage of obligation to pay , irrespective of the whether it is disputed .Thus an assessee following a mercantile system of accounting ould be eligible for deduction simply on the accrual of the liability

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.36,50

SHRI NARESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL,GWALIOR vs. ITO WARD 3(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

50,000/-was accepted as fully explained by the Ld CIT(A) also. c) That the order of Ld CIT(A) while confirming the addition of Rs.17,75,000/- is vitiated in law as the same is badly affected by extraneous considerations and is based entirely on surmises, conjectures and suspicion. 6. That the orders of the authorities below

VERMA SERVICE STATION,FIROZABAD vs. ACIT, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

68,50,000.00 Investments 50,23,797.06 Vibhav Kumar 8,36,987.00 Flate at Parshvnath at Panorma.G.Noida 42,07,621.00 Gh'aziabad Dev. Authority 500.00 Current Liabilities 8,55,290.00 Jay Pee Infratech Limited. (Klassic) 2,00,000.00 8,55,290.00 Shares VSS (P) Ltd. 25,000.00 Venus Automotive Service Indie (P) Ltd. SNG Devlopers 4,23,938.00 Suspense

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

2,50,43,467/- (60 1% of total turnover) which is on higher side for milk processing industry which is basically low margin high volume business. 3. The second reason for selection under CASS was "Difference in opening stock in current year with the closing stock of the previous year". The assesseeexplain this apparent discrepancy to be on account

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

2,50,43,467/- (60 1% of total turnover) which is on higher side for milk processing industry which is basically low margin high volume business. 3. The second reason for selection under CASS was "Difference in opening stock in current year with the closing stock of the previous year". The assesseeexplain this apparent discrepancy to be on account

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

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

2. Vide Grounds No. 1 to 4 assessee has challenged the action of the authorities below in making trading addition by application of N.P rate @8% on contract receipts ignoring the past history of the assessee which as per judicial opinion is a material consideration for estimation of income while proceeding under section

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

2 3 4 5 6 Sanjeev Kumar 20,30,000 18,25,000 20,30,000 11,00,000 11,00,000 Sanjay Kumar 26,50,000 23,61,000 26,50,000 17,00,000 17,00,000 Arvind Kumar 30,00,000 34,24,000 34,24,000 22,50,000 25,68

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.”

2,50,000. 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

SIMRAH BUILDERS,ALIGARH vs. DCIT4(1)(1) ALIGARH, ALIGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in the above terms

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

50,000/- shown by the assessee as liability towards sundry creditors balance in respect of M/s. Bharat Construction in assessee’s books. 2. Brief facts state that the assessee did not file its return of income for A.Y. 2018-19. Case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued and served upon

HYDRISE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

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

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

50,00,460/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2012-13 153A Rs.4,38,939/- Rs.2,30,94,073/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2013-14 153A Rs.10,18,269/- Rs.1,09,03,269/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2014-15 153A Rs.5,84,183/- Rs.3,09,11,700/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2015-16 143(3) Rs.10,04,820/- Rs.2,21,68

HYDRISE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

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

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

50,00,460/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2012-13 153A Rs.4,38,939/- Rs.2,30,94,073/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2013-14 153A Rs.10,18,269/- Rs.1,09,03,269/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2014-15 153A Rs.5,84,183/- Rs.3,09,11,700/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2015-16 143(3) Rs.10,04,820/- Rs.2,21,68

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