RAVENDRA SINGH,AGRA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and direct the ld

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Ravendra Singh Vs. Acit, 28, Tota Ka Taal Circle 1(2)(1), Loha Mandi, Uttar Pradesh Agra Pan : Abyps5329K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shashank Agarwal, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.02.2026 Order

74,800 made under section 68 treating the same as unexplained cash deposit in the bank account of the appellant

SAPNA CHAUHAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, ETAWAH

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

74,518/- therefore, escapement of income is proved. This also cannot be valid ground for arriving at the satisfaction for escapement of income. 16. This reasoning adopted by the learned Assessing officer for arriving at the ‘satisfaction’ for escapement of income is based on no valid ground. Notice issued under section 148 of the Act on the basis

ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DCIT 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Anil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dy. Cit, 44, R. S. Residency, Circle-2(1)(1), Dayal Bagh, Agra, Up Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aampa3335J Assessee By : Shri Rajni Kant Verma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

Section 68 of the Act and completed the assessment on 24-12-2018. 4. The Learned JCIT(A) on perusal of the bank statement of the assessee and the explanations offered by the assessee with regard to receipt of cash on sale of property in the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs reproduced the availability of Anil Kumar Agarwal cash

M/S RADHARANI JEWELLERS LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh

74,540. Subsequently, information was received by the Assessing Officer from the office of ACIT Central Circle, Rajkot, stating that during election surveillance at Rajkot Airport on 27-10-2017, a parcel containing gold jewellery weighing 255.09 grams valued at Rs. 6,05,510 was intercepted. Based on this said information, the Learned AO issued notice under Section

M/S RADHARANI JEWELLERS LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh

74,540. Subsequently, information was received by the Assessing Officer from the office of ACIT Central Circle, Rajkot, stating that during election surveillance at Rajkot Airport on 27-10-2017, a parcel containing gold jewellery weighing 255.09 grams valued at Rs. 6,05,510 was intercepted. Based on this said information, the Learned AO issued notice under Section

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

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

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

MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL,FARUKHABAD vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

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

68 of the Act. Further, we find that in the proforma reproduced above for seeking approval u/s 151 of the Act, in response to Question No. 7, the ld AO had mentioned that the provision of Explanation 2(b) of Section 147 of the Act would be applicable. On perusal of the Explanation 2(b) of Section

MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL,FARRUKHABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4(2)(1) FARRUKHABAD, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

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

68 of the Act. Further, we find that in the proforma reproduced above for seeking approval u/s 151 of the Act, in response to Question No. 7, the ld AO had mentioned that the provision of Explanation 2(b) of Section 147 of the Act would be applicable. On perusal of the Explanation 2(b) of Section

LAXMI TRADERS,AGRA vs. ITO, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2020-21]

sections 68 r.w.s. 155BBE of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The relevant discussion is made by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 6.2 of the order wherein, he discussed the capital introduced account by Shri Sunil

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

HARI OM AGARWAL,KOLARAS vs. ITO SHIVPURI, ASHOK NAGAR

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

68,92,241/- 13,74,785/- and selling expenses 3.2 The Assessing Officer observed that the sales/turnover has increased by about 2.47 times ,while General Administration and Selling expenses have increased by 5.01 times, which as per Assessing Officer were highly unreasonable/disproportionate and does not reflect the actual figure of expenses. Assessee submitted that these expenses

AMBRISH SARIN,AGRA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

68 of the I.T Act. Rejecting books of accounts solely for the reason of non acceptance of certain unsecured loans is totally wrong, bad in law, arbitrary and unwarranted. Ld. CIT(Appeals) has legally and on wrong interpretation of facts has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer. Ground No.3 i) Because the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred

KNP ASSOCIATES,AGRA vs. WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshknp Associates, Vs. Acit, 10, Panchwati Colony, Circle-1, Vinay Nagar, Bodla, Agra Nashik (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaufk5403H Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Molhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

74,69,873 and the closing balance was Rs. 10,68,988. In response to the notice issued under section

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

section 43A(3) of the Act 4.1.3 The appellant has furnished copy of purchase bills (page no. 68 to 73 of paper book) and sale bills (page no. 74

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

68 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 153A 69 -Do- Do- 2014-15 153A 70 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 143(3) 71 Shri Prakhar Garg ACJPG8778N 2009-10 153A 72 -Do- -Do- 2010-11 153A 73 -Do- -Do- 2011-12 153A 74 -Do- Do- 2012-13 153A 75 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 153A 76 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 153A

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)

74 of his order, of Delhi High Court at page 76 in the case of CIT (Central) Vs. Anand Kumar Jain HUF and several other case laws, including of Jurisdictional Allahabad High Court in the case of “Sh. Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India (2022) 138 Taxmann.com 292” and given his finding at page 81 and 82 of the order