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

69 ITR 550 (Delhi) ( Trib), wherein Hon’ble ITAT has observed that during the course of original assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3), the Assessee was specifically asked by the AO to discharge its onus u/s. 68 of the Act for the share application money received by it and after satisfying himself, he had accepted the transaction as genuine. Therefore

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

69 ITR 550 (Delhi) ( Trib), wherein Hon’ble ITAT has observed that during the course of original assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3), the Assessee was specifically asked by the AO to discharge its onus u/s. 68 of the Act for the share application money received by it and after satisfying himself, he had accepted the transaction as genuine. Therefore

SANJANA GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO-WARD-2(3)(1) JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshsanjana Gupta, Vs. Ito, 130, Gudri Bazar, Jhansi Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Awbpg1536E Assessee By : Smt Prathna Jalan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. 17. In view

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

section 68 of the income tax act is justified. It was further held that onus is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of the said cash deposits. Special leave petition was preferred challenging the above judgment before honourable Supreme court. However, the honourable Supreme Court has dismissed the same in 69

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.”

68 but might be assessed in individual hands of partners, if it is permissible under section 69 - Whether reasons

SH RANJAN KUMAR ARORA,FARRUKHABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE 4(2)(1), FARRUKHABAD

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Ranjan Kumar Arora, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 5/30, Nehru Road, Circle-4(2)(1), Farrukhabad, Up- 2096625 Farrukhabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aakpa0524D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2025

Section 68 and 69 read with Section 115BBE of the Act and completed the assessment. This action of the Learned

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

68 of the Act, the same be upheld by invoking the provisions of section 69, which, according the ld. DR, is within

HARSH SALUJA ,MATHURA vs. ITO 1(3)(2), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

68 of the Act, the same be upheld by invoking the provisions of section 69, which, according the ld. DR, is within

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

section 69 of the income tax Act. 11. The learned AR for the assessee had submitted the written submissions and in the written submission it was submitted by the learned AR that: a. The Stock as per Stock Statement is neither pledged nor in the lock and key of the Bank. b. Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2017, under

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

section 69 of the income tax Act. 11. The learned AR for the assessee had submitted the written submissions and in the written submission it was submitted by the learned AR that: a. The Stock as per Stock Statement is neither pledged nor in the lock and key of the Bank. b. Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2017, under

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 or section 69 of the Act. In this regard it is worth to observe that in the post

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed”

Bench: The Learned Cit (A).

69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) after allowing credit of the business income of Rs. 70,050/- as shown by the assessee under section 44AD of the Act. 2.1 Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT (A). However, being unconvinced, the learned CIT (A) rejected all the contentions of the assessee

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

69 of the Act. Accordingly, addition made by the Ld. A.O. is hereby confirmed to this extent. Disallowance under the provisions of section 43A(3) of the Act 4.1.3 The appellant has furnished copy of purchase bills (page no. 68

SAPNA CHAUHAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, ETAWAH

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

69 of the Act, and such fact alone cannot be a reason for ‘escapement of income’ and to clothe the learned Assessing officer with jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the Act. ITAT, Delhi in the case of BirBahadur Singh Sijwali vs. ITO(2015) 68

SATYADEV SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(4), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri Satyadev Singh, Village Vs..Ito,3,(4), Jaiswa, Post Bakla, Mathura. Mathura. Panno.Ahbps7182D (Assessee) (Revenue)

68 SOT 197 Delhi and (i) ‘Saraf Gramodyog Sansthan vs. ITO’, 108 ITD 115 (Agra). (ii) Though the assessee’s reliance on these decisions has been taken note of at 5. page 4 of the impugned order, they have not been dealt with by the ld. CIT(A). The issue raised by the assessee has, thus, not been decided

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. CHITAVALSAH JUTE MILLS LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Acit, Vs. Chitavalasah Jute Mills Ltd, Range-1, 73-74, 201, Sheetala House, Faridabad Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccc6834D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

68 or section 41 of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer also did not make any inquiry with respect to the above figure of Rs 49,72,098. The appellant has submitted a number of case laws, in respect of ad-hoc addition as well as non-specification of the provisions of the Act under which the addition

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

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

Section 10(23C) on the requirement that a college must maintain the status- quo, as it were, in regard to its knowledge based infrastructure. Nor for that matter is an educational institution prohibited from upgrading its infrastructure on educational facilities save on the pain of losing the benefit of the exemption under Section 10(23C). Imposing such

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

69 of the Act as unexplained investment without reference to any evidence or material, the findings on which are based on surmises and conjectures, the addition is not sustainable. I.T.A No. 343/Agra/2013 5 10. In view of the above, the addition of Rs.1,00,000/- is deleted and Ground No.1 is accepted. 11. Apropos Ground No.2, the assessee declared income