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

unexplained income. Thus, a total addition of ₹18,32,11,500/- was made under Section 68 of the Act, vide assessment order dated 23.12.2019, passed under Sections 147/143(3) of the Act. 5. Aggrievedby the above said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A), where the assessee filed detailed submissions both on validity of reassessment proceedings

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

unexplained in the hands of the assessee. 5.6 In the context of cash deposits in the bank account, when the Assessing Officer starts enquiry, specifically to satisfy himself of the source of such cash credit, and if during the enquiry, he is satisfied that the entries are not genuine, then he has every right to add the said sum represented

JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL HUF,AGRA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

unexplained cash credit and no such addition could be made u/s. 68, which would amount to double taxation in the hands of assessee. The cash sales, being part of regular business transactions recorded in audited books of account, were offered to tax, and no defect or falsity has been proved by the Assessing Officer. 11. In the identical factual situation

SH MANOJ KUMAR VERMA,MAINPURI vs. ITO WARD-4(2)(4), MAINPURI

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

money under section 69A read with section\n115BBE of the Act and added the same to the total income of the\nassessee. This action of the Learned AO was upheld by the Learned NFAC.\n6. We find that the Learned AO admittedly had not made any addition\non account of advance received from customers in cash

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

unexplained and will amount to credit in the books of account. Similar view is also taken by the Co-ordinate Bench consisting of brother Prashant Maharishi, A.M., in the matter of Shri Janak Goel vs. DCIT (ITA No. 937 & 938/Del/2012-order dated 13.05.2019), wherein it has been held that the passbook is the books of account within the meaning of section

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

unexplained investment. 2. That the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in not accepting that the amount of Rs.11,65,000 deposited in the bank account was the money earned from cash sales in respect of which audited books of accounts maintained in the regular course of business along with all the sales invoices, stock registers have

AJIT SINGH,SHIVPURI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GWALIOR

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No 263/Agr/2025 is allowed

unexplained money under Section 68 of the Act is incorrect and legally unsound. Section 68 applies to unexplained cash credits

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

unexplained cash credit assessable in the hands of the assessee under section 68 of the Act. 12. The Ld. CIT(A) during the course of hearing of the appeal after receipt of written submission filed by the assessee sought further evidences from the assessee pertaining to the advance so received from M/s Easyway Solutions (P) Ltd, which were partly brought

SOURABH KUMAR SONI,ASHOKNAGAR (M.P) vs. ITO - ASHOKNAGAR, ASHOKNAGAR

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act." It is requested that the above grounds now being taken as additional legal grounds No. 9,10 and 11 may kindly be admitted and obliged.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that as per information available with the Assessing Officer on AIMS Module of ITBA, it was observed by the Assessing Officer

RUBY JAIN,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(3), AGRA

In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as follows :

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshruby Jain, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1/78A, Kale Ka Tall, Delhi Ward-1(1)(3), Gate, Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aevpj4936P Assessee By : Shri K. K. Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act by the lower authorities. I am in agreement with the argument advanced by the ld AR that assessee is not bound to maintain books of account and hence the provisions of Section 68 of the Act per se could not be made applicable herein and that the bank statement cannot be construed

LOKENDRA KUMAR GAUTAM,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD, 1(3)(2), MATHURA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

unexplained cash credits. The Learned AR further submitted that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited during the demonetization period in the assessee’s savings bank account with HDFC Bank, which was sourced out of the assessee’s personal savings, and hence does not warrant any adverse inference. The reliance was placed on various judicial precedents, including the decision

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), GWALIOR vs. B.P. EDIBLE OIL PVT LTD, GWALIOR

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2011-12

money remained unexplained. However, whether the credit entries represented the income of the appellant company has to be examined strictly in the light of the provisions of section 68

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]

unexplained unsecured loan (including addition of Rs.2,40,000/- made on account of disallowance of payment of interest) without properly appreciating the facts brought on record by the Appellant during the course of assessment and appellate proceedings. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) (NFAC) has grossly misconceived the provisions of section 68 of the Income

ARJUN TRADING CO. PVT. LTD.,FIROZABAD vs. I.T.O.-5(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaarjun Trading Company Private Vs..Ito-5,(1), Ltd. A-4, Ganesh Nagar, Firozabad. Firozabad. Panno.Aadca7230J (Assessee) (Revenue)

unexplained cash credits in the form of share application money received during financial year 2002-03, invoking the provisions of section 68

MR. PRADEEP KUMAR,ALIGARH vs. ITO., WARD-4(2)(5), MAINPURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

money by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act towards unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period in the bank account maintained with Gramin Bank of Aryavart, Karhal, Mainpuri. Further, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of credit in the bank account maintained by the assessee with United Bank of India, Etawah bearing

S.P. TEA ESTATE (INDIA)(P)(LTD),GWALIOR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -2, GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2009-10] S.P.Tea Estate (India) (P)(Ltd.), Acit, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Inderganj Police Circle-2, Station, Jayendraganj Lashkar, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, City Center, Gwalior, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh-474002 Madhya Pradesh-474009 Pan-Aaics2523F Appellant Respondent

unexplained credits under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, which is bad in law Hence the addition so made should be deleted. 4. That the learned Assessing Officer / Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in making / sustaining the addition, on the ground that the assessee did not have any net worth, turnover, or profitability

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

MANJU AGARWAL,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Manju Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, W/O. Sameer Agarwal, Ward-1(2), Near Surya Tower, Old Gwalior High Court Road, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Afepa7981H Assessee By : Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

68,47,079/-) as alleged unexplained money without considering the written submission made during assessment. proceedings and statement of facts given in Form No. 35 and written submission during appellate proceedings in correct perspective. 2. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, and in any view of the matter, the Ld. Authorities below have erred