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.”

section 68 of the Act.” 4. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the additional evidence furnished by the appellant under Rule 46A of the Act and confirmed the addition as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act vide Para 7.3 as follows: “7.3 I have gone through the assessment order and written submission carefully. It is seen

VEENA SINGH,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

TDS of Rs.2,34,213/-. However, as the original return was filed belatedly under Section 139(4), the Assessing Officer observed that the revised return so filed was not acceptable. Further notice under Section 142(1) with a detailed questionnaire dated 14.12.2017 issued by Assessing Officer, went unanswered. The Assessing Officer, based on discrepancies and lack of explanations, made

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

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

SMT ARCHANA DUTTA,MATHURA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Archana Dutta, Prop. M/S Vs..Acit,Circle-3, Dutta & Dutta Construction, Co., Mathura. 77E Dutta & Dutta Construction, Govind Nagar, Mathura. Panno.Afxpd7557B (Assessee) (Revenue)

68 of the 'Act'. 5. BECAUSE, after having rejected the books of accounts by invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the 'Act' and thereafter computing Business Profit after application of profit rate there is no valid basis for making separate addition of Rs. 9,157/- under section 43B of the Act. 6. BECAUSE, alternatively, in any view

STATE BANK OF INDIA,GWALIOR vs. CIT A , GWALIOR

In the result, ITA No.42/Agr/2018 is allowed for statistical

68, 61, State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 57 City Center, BPLS11822G 85,,76,77 India, Branch- Gwalior /Ag/2018 Raghaogarh, A.Y.2013-14 Guna 58- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 70 & 64 State Bank of 59 City Center, BPLS11718A /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior A.Y.2013-14 Mayana, guna 60- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 69 & 65 State Bank of 61- City Center, BPLS11689G /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior Pagagra

STATE BANK OF INDIA,GWALIOR vs. CIT A, GWALIOR

In the result, ITA No.42/Agr/2018 is allowed for statistical

68, 61, State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 57 City Center, BPLS11822G 85,,76,77 India, Branch- Gwalior /Ag/2018 Raghaogarh, A.Y.2013-14 Guna 58- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 70 & 64 State Bank of 59 City Center, BPLS11718A /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior A.Y.2013-14 Mayana, guna 60- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 69 & 65 State Bank of 61- City Center, BPLS11689G /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior Pagagra

MARSHAL SECURITY SERVICES,AGRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

section 68 of the Act. AO converted limited\nscrutiny to complete scrutiny on 14.12.2017 and framed order on 28.12.2017.\nContention of the Assessee: Assessee submitted that AO enquired on\nunsecured loans prior to 14.12.2017, whereas he got approval on 14.12.2017\nand it is against the provision of the ACT.\nHeld:That the assessing officer has exceeded his jurisdiction in enquiring

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 a condition which

M/S. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION,ETAWAH vs. DCIT(TDS), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal

section 201 (1). Although assessee later furnished the quarterly statements and requisite taxes were also paid, but that would not absolve the assessee from being treated as assessee in default. I agree with the stand of the AO that the assessee has to be treated as assessee in default for not deducting timely TDS and on the rates prescribed. Hence

MANDIR LODI MATA,SHIVPURI vs. THE ITO- ASHOK NAGAR, GWALIOR

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

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2020-21 Mandir Lodi Mata Vs. Income Tax Officer, Narwar Karera Ashok Nagar Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh Pan : Aaetm2888E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Naveen Gargh, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Order

68,293/-, this information is extracted from TDS statement. On further inquiry, from the banks, it was noticed that assessee had total cash deposit of Rs. 2300540/- and other deposit of Rs. 2166247/-. In absence of return of income, proceedings u/s 148A was initiated and accordingly, the entire credit of Rs. 44,66,787/- treated as income chargeable

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)

TDS)[2010] 329 ITR 404 Kerala HC [ Page No. 48 ]  Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency vs CCIT[2012]28 Taxmann.com 288(AP) [ Page No. 50 ]  Himachal Pradesh Environment Protection &Pollution Control Board Vs CIT[2010] 42 SOT 343(Chd) [ Page No. 57 ]  Entertainment Society of Goa vs CIT [2013] 34 Taxman.com 210 (Panji) [ Page No. 61 ] & 355/Agra/2014

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)

TDS)[2010] 329 ITR 404 Kerala HC [ Page No. 48 ]  Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency vs CCIT[2012]28 Taxmann.com 288(AP) [ Page No. 50 ]  Himachal Pradesh Environment Protection &Pollution Control Board Vs CIT[2010] 42 SOT 343(Chd) [ Page No. 57 ]  Entertainment Society of Goa vs CIT [2013] 34 Taxman.com 210 (Panji) [ Page No. 61 ] & 355/Agra/2014

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)

TDS)[2010] 329 ITR 404 Kerala HC [ Page No. 48 ]  Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency vs CCIT[2012]28 Taxmann.com 288(AP) [ Page No. 50 ]  Himachal Pradesh Environment Protection &Pollution Control Board Vs CIT[2010] 42 SOT 343(Chd) [ Page No. 57 ]  Entertainment Society of Goa vs CIT [2013] 34 Taxman.com 210 (Panji) [ Page No. 61 ] & 355/Agra/2014

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

68,375 4,50,000 From the above, it is clear that- 1. In the case of Bharat Bansal, the assessee has shown fresh unsecured loan of Rs 3 lacs while the loan of Rs 1.50 lacs was confirmed by the party. The closing balances of unsecured loans is Rs 3,00,000/- while the assessee in his books

M/S GINNI FILAMENTS LTD.,MATHURA vs. A.C.I.T., RANGE-3, MATHURA

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

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

TDS by Rs. 10,34,853/- instead of Rs. 13,81,255/- as claimed by the assessee in the revised computation of income. 3 9. BECAUSE, while making the assessment the 'AO' and while sustaining the addition the 'CIT(A)' made various observations/conclusions which are contrary to facts available on records. The findings recorded in this aspect are wholly perverse

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

68,22,031\nPurchases\n29,16,16,308\n46,54,31,267\n5,57,08,051 5,57,08,051\

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