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)

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

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

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

M/S KUNJ POWER PROJECTS PVT.LTD,MATHURA vs. ADDL.CIT(TDS) , KANPUR, KANPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

business disruptions. The issue arose during a TDS survey. A penalty was levied under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act for this

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Income from\nreal Estate Business (iii) Sales Turnover Mismatch, and (iv) other expenses\nclaimed in the P&L account\nOrder passed by A.O:- AO added unsecured loans of Rs. 8000000.00 as\nunexplained cash credit under 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

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

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

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

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

business of Contract for civil construction. 3. BECAUSE, while confirming the addition the Ld CIT(A) was highly unjustified in confirming ad- hoc disallowance of Rs. 47,88,313/- ignoring the fact on records that Audit Report stood brought on records of the AO as such existence of Books of Accounts cannot be denied. ' . 4. BECAUSE, the 'appellant' denies levy

THE CHIEF MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION)STATE BANK OF INDIA,)N,JHANSI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT (TDS), KANPUR

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 287/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 289/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Chief Manager (Administration) Addl. Cit (Tds) State Bank Of India Kanpur बनाम/ Regional Business Office (Rbo), Vs. 372/44, Gwalior Road Civil Lines, Jhansi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir/Tan No.Agrs-14799-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Deepak Maheshwari, Adv.-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015-16 & 2017-18 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of First Appellate Authority. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Identical I.E., Confirmation Of Levy Of Penalty U/S 271C. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10-06-2024 Confirming Levy Of Penalty U/S 271C.

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AGRA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 287/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 289/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Chief Manager (Administration) Addl. CIT (TDS) State Bank of India Kanpur बनाम/ Regional Business

THE CHIEF MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION) STATE BANK OF INDIA,JHANSI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT(TDS), KANPUR

Appeal stand allowed

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“SMC” BENCH, AGRA\nBEFORE HON'BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND\nHON'BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM\n1. आयकर अपीलसं./ ITA No. 287/Agr/2024\n(निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16)\n&\n2. आयकर अपीलसं./ ITA No. 289/Agr/2024\n(निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18)\nThe Chief Manager (Administration)\nState Bank of India\nRegional Business Office

RAKESH AGARWAL ,ALIGARH vs. PCIT AGRA-1, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

business of manufacturing, export and sales against form H of electrical wiring accessories. The case was reopened u/s 147of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) by the AO, vide notice U/s 148 of the Act, dated 30.03.2021, on the ground that the assessee had purchased an immovable property, at a consideration significantly lower than the circle rate, thereby attracting

MAMTA AGARWAL,ALIGARH vs. PCIT AGRA-1, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

business of manufacturing, export and sales against form H of electrical wiring accessories. The case was reopened u/s 147of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) by the AO, vide notice U/s 148 of the Act, dated 30.03.2021, on the ground that the assessee had purchased an immovable property, at a consideration significantly lower than the circle rate, thereby attracting