GARRISON ENGINEER (E/M), MAHARAJPUR vs. ITO.,(TDS), GWALIOR

In the result, ITA Nos. 128 to 131/Agr/2021 and ITA Nos

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

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in not allowing reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing before passing the ex-parte order. …………………..” 7. Perused the records. Heard learned representative for appellant assessee and learned Sr. DR for Revenue. 8. Learned AR for assessee has submitted that the appellant assessee was not afforded reasonable opportunity to make his submissions

GARRISON ENGINEER(E/M),MAHARAJPUR vs. ITO.,(TDS), , GWALIOR

In the result, ITA Nos. 128 to 131/Agr/2021 and ITA Nos

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

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in not allowing reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing before passing the ex-parte order. …………………..” 7. Perused the records. Heard learned representative for appellant assessee and learned Sr. DR for Revenue. 8. Learned AR for assessee has submitted that the appellant assessee was not afforded reasonable opportunity to make his submissions

GARRISON ENGINEER (E/M),GWALIOR vs. ITO,(TDS),, GWALIOR

In the result, ITA Nos. 128 to 131/Agr/2021 and ITA Nos

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

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in not allowing reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing before passing the ex-parte order. …………………..” 7. Perused the records. Heard learned representative for appellant assessee and learned Sr. DR for Revenue. 8. Learned AR for assessee has submitted that the appellant assessee was not afforded reasonable opportunity to make his submissions

GARRISON EMGOMEER (E/M) AIR FORCE STATION , MAHARAJPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (TDS),, BHOPAL

In the result, ITA Nos. 128 to 131/Agr/2021 and ITA Nos

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

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in not allowing reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing before passing the ex-parte order. …………………..” 7. Perused the records. Heard learned representative for appellant assessee and learned Sr. DR for Revenue. 8. Learned AR for assessee has submitted that the appellant assessee was not afforded reasonable opportunity to make his submissions

GARRISON ENGINEER (E/M),MAHARAJPUR vs. JCIT., (TDS), BHOPAL

In the result, ITA Nos. 128 to 131/Agr/2021 and ITA Nos

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

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in not allowing reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing before passing the ex-parte order. …………………..” 7. Perused the records. Heard learned representative for appellant assessee and learned Sr. DR for Revenue. 8. Learned AR for assessee has submitted that the appellant assessee was not afforded reasonable opportunity to make his submissions

GARRISON ENGINEER (E/M),GWALIOR vs. ITO.(TDS), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, ITA Nos. 128 to 131/Agr/2021 and ITA Nos

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

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in not allowing reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing before passing the ex-parte order. …………………..” 7. Perused the records. Heard learned representative for appellant assessee and learned Sr. DR for Revenue. 8. Learned AR for assessee has submitted that the appellant assessee was not afforded reasonable opportunity to make his submissions

GARRISON ENGINEER (E/M) AIR FORCE STATION,MAHARJPUR vs. JCIT(TDS),, BHOPAL

In the result, ITA Nos. 128 to 131/Agr/2021 and ITA Nos

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

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in not allowing reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing before passing the ex-parte order. 7. Perused the records. Heard learned representative for appellant assessee and learned Sr. DR for Revenue. 8. Learned AR for assessee has submitted that the appellant assessee was not afforded reasonable opportunity to make his submissions

RISHAV SHELTERS P LTD,AGRA vs. JCIT RANGE-4 , AGRA

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

addition of interest income should be made separately and the percentage of net profit as has to be considered excluding interest income; that in the immediately preceding year relevant to AY 2010-11 interest income was of Rs. 32,68,385/- whereas in the year under consideration the interest income is of ITA 108 & 121/Agr/2015

M/S KALYANI BUILDWELL PRIVATE LTD,AGRA vs. ACIT CIRCLE4(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S Kalyani Buildwell (P) Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Kalyani Point, Near Tulsi Income-Tax, Circle-4(1), Agra Cinema, Bye-Pass Road, Agra Pan No: Aacck7095G (Assessee) (Revenue)

additional income of Rs. 1,50,43,017/-for the assessment year 2011 – 12. However,the appellant in the original Income Tax Return e-filed on 29.09.2011 has declared total income of Rs 1,18,64,500/- only. Therefore, the AO has made multiple disallowances on account of expenses claimed under the heads: TDS

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)

addition of Rs. 3,58,61,640/- has been made. Section 2(15) is reproduced as under:- 2(15) "charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, preservation of environment (including watersheds, forests and wildlife) and & 355/Agra/2014 & SA Nos. 1 to 3/Ag/2017 37 (In ITA Nos. 149 to 151/Agra/2017) preservation of monuments or places or objects of artistic

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)

addition of Rs. 3,58,61,640/- has been made. Section 2(15) is reproduced as under:- 2(15) "charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, preservation of environment (including watersheds, forests and wildlife) and & 355/Agra/2014 & SA Nos. 1 to 3/Ag/2017 37 (In ITA Nos. 149 to 151/Agra/2017) preservation of monuments or places or objects of artistic

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)

addition of Rs. 3,58,61,640/- has been made. Section 2(15) is reproduced as under:- 2(15) "charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, preservation of environment (including watersheds, forests and wildlife) and & 355/Agra/2014 & SA Nos. 1 to 3/Ag/2017 37 (In ITA Nos. 149 to 151/Agra/2017) preservation of monuments or places or objects of artistic

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

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

TDS having been deducted during the year, the expenditure is allowable u/s 40(a). The disallowance is wholly illegal. The same may kindly be directed to be deleted. (12) Pause Ld.CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition Rs 46, 78, 719/- in respect of non inclusion of other receipt under infrastructure fund. The Ld.CIT

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)

addition made against extra profit. 3 BECAUSE, the ‘appellant’ denies levy of interest under 7. section 234B of the Act as the Income of the assessee is subjected to TDS

RAJVEER SINGH YADAV CONTRACTOR,ETAWAH vs. ITO-2(2)(5), , ETAWAH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Income of the assessee is subjected to TDS. 5. BECAUSE, while making the assessment the authorities below made various observations/ conclusions which are contrary to facts available on records. While making the addition

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.”

additions prescribed in Rules 46 of Income Tax Rules. In support he placed reliance on the judgment of ‘Naresh Chauhan vs. DCIT’, (2016) 48 ITR 1 (Trib.Chd.) (APB, 22 to 25). The written reply filed before the CIT(A), which is reproduced in para 7.2 of the impugned order which reproduced as under: “7.2 On this issue, the appellant

MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

addition of alleged bogus purchases as made by Ld. AO is liable to be deleted on this foremost legal ground alone. As a natural corollary thereof, consequent rejection of books of accounts by Ld. CIT(A) on the same very ground and application of presumptive indicative rate of income of 8% u/s 44AD also could not be upheld

MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

addition of alleged bogus purchases as made by Ld. AO is liable to be deleted on this foremost legal ground alone. As a natural corollary thereof, consequent rejection of books of accounts by Ld. CIT(A) on the same very ground and application of presumptive indicative rate of income of 8% u/s 44AD also could not be upheld