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)

income are earned from purchase and sale of land and construction of flat and selling them at profit are in the nature of trade, commerce or business are wholly imaginary as well as contrary to the facts of the case. Ld. CIT(A) atpage 83 of his orderhas given much stress on the nature of activities in respect

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)

income are earned from purchase and sale of land and construction of flat and selling them at profit are in the nature of trade, commerce or business are wholly imaginary as well as contrary to the facts of the case. Ld. CIT(A) atpage 83 of his orderhas given much stress on the nature of activities in respect

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

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

business which is not justified and against the law. Under the facts and circumstances 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

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

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

Income Tax &Anr., (2011) 53 DTR (Del) 130. Also in Tolani Education Society v. Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemption) &Ors., (2013) 351 ITR 184, the Bombay High Court has expressed a view in line with the Punjab and Haryana High Court view, following the judgments of this Court in the Surat Art Silk Manufacturers Association Case and Aditanar Educational

SHYAM SINGH YADAV,GWALIOR vs. ITO 2(2), GWL, GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shyam Singh Yadav, Vs. Ito, Opp. Doordarshan Kendra, Ward-2(2), Thatipur Gaon, Morar, Gwalior, Mp Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abhpy8702B Assessee By : Shri S. C. Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shalenndra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/02/2025

TDS). This evidence clearly demonstrates that the receipts were business income and not unexplained or unaccounted credit. 4 That the AO failed

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)

business premises of the appellant where during the course of survey the assessee has disclosed an 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

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.”

TDS of Rs. 1236/-. The interest was allowed by the learned J.C.I.T. as allowable expenditure while passing the assessment order. The depositor is a salaried employee and amount advanced out of salary savings to earn interest for a period of six month. The amount has been received by the appellant through account payee cheque and refunded by account payee cheque

SURBHI ANAND,SOUTH DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2023-24] Surbhi Anand, Acit, C-155, Basement, Lajpat Circle-1(1)(1), Nagar-2, South Delhi, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Sanjay Place, Delhi-110024 Agra, Uttar Pradesh-282002 Pan-Acypa6580B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sahib P. Satsangi, Ca Respondent By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 Order, Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

TDS of Rs.24,04,000 claimed without appreciating that the appellant had declared his income chargeable under the head 'income from other sources' on mercantile system/accrual basis of accounting regularly employed by him in terms of section 145 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and deposited tax thereon himself resulted in payment of tax twice on the same income. 5. During

RAJISH KUMAR GUPTA,AGRA vs. PR.CIT.-1, AGRA

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

business was duly audited which was evident from the audit report. Since there was a loss of Rs.10.01 Lacs, the same was not included in turnover. The TDS demand was stated to be nothing but interest for late payment of TDS and it was not tax on income

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)

Income of the assessee is subjected to TDS.” 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of Civil Contractor and work

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),AGRA, AGRA vs. EMCO EXPORTS, AGRA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

TDS provisions u/s. 195 of the Act and called for the response of the assessee. Assessee submitted that assessee’s business entails services of foreign commission agents to deal with foreign clients and they have made payments for the foreign agents commission and trade fair expenses etc. The foreign commission agent was non-resident and had no income

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]

business of silver and gold trading during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had received substantial loan from unsecured creditors amounting to Rs.71,08,000/- (Rs.163,73,000- Rs.92,65,000/-). The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction with respect to the said five unsecured creditors

MEERA YADAV,JHANSI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE2(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, ITA No. 359, 394 and 360/Agr/2025 are allowed for

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

TDS as per its profit and loss account. Assessing Officer was of the view that any interest on dues is a penalty and not acceptable as expenses under the Act. Hence, case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 was issued on 15.01.2020 and served upon the assessee. Assessee, however, did not file any return of income

MEERA YADAV,JHANSI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, ITA No. 359, 394 and 360/Agr/2025 are allowed for

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

TDS as per its profit and loss account. Assessing Officer was of the view that any interest on dues is a penalty and not acceptable as expenses under the Act. Hence, case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 was issued on 15.01.2020 and served upon the assessee. Assessee, however, did not file any return of income

MEERA YADAV,JHANSI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, ITA No. 359, 394 and 360/Agr/2025 are allowed for

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

TDS as per its profit and loss account. Assessing Officer was of the view that any interest on dues is a penalty and not acceptable as expenses under the Act. Hence, case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 was issued on 15.01.2020 and served upon the assessee. Assessee, however, did not file any return of income

RAJIV ANAND & SONS,GWALIOR vs. ITO TDS, GWALIOR

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter short the ‘Act’). 2. Since a common issue is involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2 I.T.A No.113 to 115/Agra/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEARs-2016-17) 3. Briefly, the facts are that the late fees have been levied by the AO u/s 234E

GIRDHARI LAL KEDAR NATH SINGHAL,AGRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahmangirdhari Lal Kedar Nath Singhal, Vs. Ito 1 (1)(1), Ff – 1, Bhagwati Complex, Agra. M.G. Road, Opp. Shah Cinema, Agra – 282 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aacfg5458N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Naveen Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Order : 03.09.2025

TDS certificates were also submitted before the authorities. Further I observe that assessee also submitted the ITR of these parties. Since these parties were not brought before the AO and these transactions were carried by settling the same in cash, the expenses were disallowed. Since these parties are already filing return of income 16 and their incomes were assessed

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), GWALIOR vs. SWASTIK ROADLINES P LTD, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is treated as partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

TDS in excess of tax payable on returned income. I.T.A No. 146/Agra/2019 3 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee-company had furnished each and every information/documents sought for by the Assessing Officer. Ground Nos.1 & 2: 4. The Ld.DR for the Revenue had submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) had wrongly allowed the disallowance u/s.40