ITAT Agra Judgments — March 2021

DINESH CHANDRA DUTTA,ALIGARH vs CIT A, ALIGARH

ITA 786/AGR/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed8 Mar 2021AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 54, restricting deduction to 'one residential house', was effective from 01.04.2015 and thus not applicable to the assessment year under consideration. It also relied on previous judgments to hold that 'a residential house' can be interpreted in the plural.

SH. VISHNU KANT,AGRA vs ITO.-2(1)(5), AGRA

ITA 123/AGR/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2021AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer erred in estimating profits at 20% without rejecting the books. It calculated the profit based on actual sales and purchases, estimating the net profit at Rs. 3,00,000/- after considering potential selling costs.

RAKESH AGARWAL,MATHURA vs ITO WARD-3(3), MATHURA

ITA 307/AGR/2018[2007-08]Status: Disposed4 Mar 2021AY 2007-08Dismissed

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to the condition that it could be reinstituted if the dispute resolution under the scheme fails.

RAVINDRA KUMAR RAI,JHANSI vs ITO, CHAHATARPUR

ITA 686/AGR/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed4 Mar 2021AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed ex parte orders and failed to decide the appeals on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the IT Act. Therefore, the appeals were remanded for a fresh decision.

MAHESH CHAND GUPTA,GWALIOR vs ITO., WARD-1(1), GWLIOR

ITA 754/AGR/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed3 Mar 2021AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee had no opportunity to furnish evidence before the Assessing Officer due to the ex parte assessment. The CIT(A) also denied admitting additional evidence without considering this fact. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

M/S HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD.,AGRA vs ITO., WARD-2(1)(5), AGRA

ITA 183/AGR/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed3 Mar 2021AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was accordingly consigned to records and treated as dismissed.

M/S RAMESHTHA CONSTRUCTION,JHANSI vs DY. C.I.T., CIRCLE-6, JHANSI

ITA 332/AGR/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed2 Mar 2021AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the interest earned on FDRs deposited as security for contracts is intricately linked to the assessee's business and should be considered business income. However, the issue of insurance claim income was remanded for fresh adjudication.

SMT. INDIRA YADAV,JHANSI vs ITO.,-2(3)(4), LALITPUR

ITA 425/AGR/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed2 Mar 2021AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer was aware of the assessee's correct residential address but issued the notice under Section 148 to a different address. Due to the lack of proper service and opportunity for the assessee to present evidence, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.