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

ii). That during the original assessment proceedings under section 143(3), the appellant, vide notice dated 19.05.2015, was specifically show caused to explain the impugned share application money amounting to Rs.18,32,00,000/- received from Silver Heritage Nivas Private Ltd., in response to which, the appellant had furnished detailed explanation dated 21.10.2015 with the following details/documentary evidences

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

6 and that the assessee had declared income u/s 44AD of the Act from domestic trading, which stands accepted. 14. The ld. DR, per contra, has placed reliance on the impugned order. It has been submitted that there is no evidence of business at all and there are merely receipts. Therefore, according to the ld. DR, the rate

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

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

section 144 i.e. ‘Best Judgment Assessment.’ 3. The assessment of income as per discussion above is framed below: “a. The value of phyiscial stock taken on date of survey was Rs.1,30,14,587/-. The partner of the firms, Sh. Mukesh Agarwal in his statement on the date of survey was confronted with this stock inventory which was taken

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

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

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

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

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

section 145(3)— Assessee did not produce complete bills and vouchers of expenses claimed, therefore, it was reasonable and appropriate for CIT(A) to hold that prof it rate of 6 percent was fair and reasonable for purpose of computing business income of assessee—AO had applied exorbitant and unreasonable profit rate of12.5 percent without considering history of assessee

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

6 5.6.1 The issue of cash credit has always been a matter of vexed litigation. Section 68 enacts a golden rule of evidence which is not in dispute, i.e., if any sum is found credited in the books of account of an assessee, the onus is on him to explain the said entry. The principle embodied in Section

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),AGRA, AGRA vs. EMCO EXPORTS, AGRA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

ii). DCIT, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad vs. M/s. Divi’s Laboratories Ltd., Hyderabad (ITA No.601 to 604/Hyd/2009 – A.Y. 2001- 02 to 2004-05) order dated 25.03.2011 (iii). ACIT, Circle 1, Agra vs. M/s. Nuova Shoes, Agra (ITA No. 435/Agr/2015- A.Y. 2010-11) order dated 28.09.2017. (iv). ACIT, Circle-1, Agra vs. M/s. Manufax (India) (ITA No. 434 & 446/Agr/2015

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

68 ITR 796 Joseph Thomas & Bros. Vs. CIT wherein it was held “I was common ground that no details of the cases which the ITO considered as comparable were ever furnished to the assessee. This was a violation of the settled principle on the subject and the provision of sub-section (3) of section 142. Therefore, there

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

68 ITR 796 Joseph Thomas & Bros. Vs. CIT wherein it was held “I was common ground that no details of the cases which the ITO considered as comparable were ever furnished to the assessee. This was a violation of the settled principle on the subject and the provision of sub-section (3) of section 142. Therefore, there

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), AGRA vs. DR. ANIL KUMAR VERMA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the C

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaa.Y. :2009-10

II, Agra for the assessment year 2009-10. The following grounds have been raised by the Revenue in ITA No.274/Agr/2013: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.62,13,500/- out of addition of Rs.63,63,500/- made by AO on account of cash Deposit in bank accounts without appreciating

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

6 residential house in India (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset), the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say,— (a) if the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole

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

6. Copy of Shipping Bill No. 4834158 dated 05.04.2013 issued under Indian Customs 46-59 EDI System (ICES) (Details of painting as per Page 231 verifiable with reference to invoice pages 205-228) CO 07/AGR/2025 Sunil Kumar Joshan 7. Copies of Airway Bill (Total no. of Pieces 13 verifiable with reference to Page 228, 60 Invoice details and Shipping Bill

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

ii) that the assesse having failed to prove the genuineness and source of the said cash credits, the impugned amount must be treated as the assessee’s income from undisclosed source. On appeal, the AAC set aside the ITO’s order and upheld the assessee’s claim. On appeal by the revenue, the tribunal, after taking into consideration the statement

SAPNA CHAUHAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, ETAWAH

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

II, Agra through Additional Commissioner of Income tax, Range-5, Firozabad for seeking approval to issue notice u/s 148 of Income tax Act, 1961.” 4. Per contra, the Ld. D.R ShriWaseemArshad, made a preliminary objection submitting that assessee since had not challenged the validity of notice under section 148 of the Act at any stage before the authorities below

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.”

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 and arbitrarily confirmed an addition of Rs. 1,11,038/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing the claim of interest paid holding the same

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is partly

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

6 | P a g e to have been guided from the facts gathered from the information allegedly shared by concerned AOs of the above three buyers and supplier of appellant. (Para 4 of AO’s order also Refer PB Page No. 632 internal Para 2.2) The learned CIT(A) NFAC vide his order dated 25.06.2025 upheld the addition for estimation