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)

10 Section 16 of the UPUPD Act prohibits use of any land or building in contravention of the plans. 11 Chapter VII deals in finance, accounts and audit of the authority as per the norms issued by the State Government. I may be allowed to read the whole chapter:- 12 Section 29 provides conferment of other powers

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

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

Section 10(23C) on the requirement that a college must maintain the status- quo, as it were, in regard to its knowledge based infrastructure. Nor for that matter is an educational institution prohibited from upgrading its infrastructure on educational facilities save on the pain of losing the benefit of the exemption under Section 10(23C). Imposing such

MAHIM PATRAN P. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT -2, AGRA

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

iii). Haryana Paper Distributors (P) Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT(2018) 95 taxmann.com 152 (Gujrat) (iv). CIT(E) v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority dt. 26.03.2019(Bom) 412 ITR 521. 9. Further, no oral arguments were addressed by the ld. AR. However, in the written submissions, it was submitted as under : (2) Section 263 can be invoked if both the following twin conditions

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

iii). ACIT, Circle 1, Agra vs. M/s. Nuova Shoes, Agra (ITA No. 435/Agr/2015- A.Y. 2010-11) order dated 28.09.2017. (iv). ACIT, Circle-1, Agra vs. M/s. Manufax (India) (ITA No. 434 & 446/Agr/2015 – A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12) order dated 11.04.2018. (v). ACIT, Central Circle, Agra vs. M/s. Virola International (ITA No. 112/Agr/2017 – A.Y. 2012-13) order dated

GRAM VIKAS KALYAN SANSTHAN,MATHURA vs. I.T.O. (TDS), AGRA

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhgram Vikas Kalyan Sansthan, Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds), Nagla Aklha, Sonkh – Goverdhan Road, Agra. Mathura – 281 123 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aaatg3272E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shalenndra Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025

iii) M/s Jagram Prakashan Ltd., Rs. 38,155/- iv) M/s Unique Communication Rs. 5,75,599/- 3. Since, the assessee should have deducted the tax at source as per provisions of section 194C of the Income tax act at the time of crediting the said payments to the accounts of the contractors, which it has failed to do, thus

STATE BANK OF INDIA,GWALIOR vs. CIT A , GWALIOR

In the result, ITA No.42/Agr/2018 is allowed for statistical

10. 16/Ag/2018 State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K City Center, BPLS11935A A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Gata, Distt. Bhind. 11. 17/Ag/2018 State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K City Center, BPLS11848E A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Lahar, Bhind 12. 18/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of City Center, BPLS11936B A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Gormi, Bhind 13- 12-15/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K

STATE BANK OF INDIA,GWALIOR vs. CIT A, GWALIOR

In the result, ITA No.42/Agr/2018 is allowed for statistical

10. 16/Ag/2018 State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K City Center, BPLS11935A A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Gata, Distt. Bhind. 11. 17/Ag/2018 State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K City Center, BPLS11848E A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Lahar, Bhind 12. 18/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of City Center, BPLS11936B A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Gormi, Bhind 13- 12-15/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K

NARAYANI RATHORE,SHIVPURI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshnarayani Rathore, Vs. Assessment Unit, Peeroth Shivpuri, Income Tax Shivpuri, Mp Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dhgpr1886H

10. In this regard, it would be gainful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT reported in 464 ITR 430 (Bombay) (HC) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has dealt with this issue in detail by holding in favour of the assessee by observing

BADARIPRASAD,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshbadriprasad, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Heerabagh Colony, Guna, Guna, Gwalior Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Arapr6314B

10. In this regard, it would be gainful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT reported in 464 ITR 430 (Bombay) (HC) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has dealt with this issue in detail by holding in favour of the assessee by observing

HARICHARAN RATHORE,ASHOK NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,ASHOK NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshharicharan Rathore, Vs. Ito, 125, Path Kheda, Ashok Ashok Nagar, Nagar, Mp Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Csqpr0999M Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

10. In this regard, it would be gainful to refer to the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT reported in 464 ITR 430 (Bombay) (HC) wherein the Hon‟ble High Court has dealt with this issue in detail by holding in favour of the assessee by observing

SUNITA,SAHU vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

10. In this regard, it would be gainful to refer to the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT reported in 464 ITR 430 (Bombay) (HC) wherein the Hon‟ble High Court has dealt with this issue in detail by holding in favour of the assessee by observing

ASHOK SAHU,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(1), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

10. In this regard, it would be gainful to refer to the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT reported in 464 ITR 430 (Bombay) (HC) wherein the Hon‟ble High Court has dealt with this issue in detail by holding in favour of the assessee by observing

STATE BANK OF INDIA,VRINDAVAN vs. CIT APPEALS 1, AGRA

In the result, ITA No. 65/Agra/2017 is allowed, whereas ITA

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

iii. Court, dated 16.06.2009, in ITA No. 3/2009. ‘DCIT vs. M/s Pfizer Ltd’, order dated 25.05.2016 passed by the iv. Mumbai Tribunal in ITA Nos. 5053 to 5057/Mum/2013, for A.Ys. 2004-05 to 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2009-10. And ‘Pfizer Ltd. vs. ITO (TDS)’ and ‘ITO (TDS) vs. Pfizer Ltd.’, order v. dated 31.10.2012 passed by the Mumbai

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

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

iii). 5. During the year there was substantial increase in labor charges and the payment made to sub contractors. Details of the same were filed before Ld. Assessing Officer. (Kindly refer Page 30 to 39 of the Paper book). 6. Moreover the reason for decline in N.P rate was also submitted before Ld. CIT(A). (Kindly refer Page 7 Para

M/S GINNI FILAMENTS LTD.,MATHURA vs. A.C.I.T., RANGE-3, MATHURA

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

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

TDS by Rs. 10,34,853/- instead of Rs. 13,81,255/- as claimed by the assessee in the revised computation of income. 3 9. BECAUSE, while making the assessment the 'AO' and while sustaining the addition the 'CIT(A)' made various observations/conclusions which are contrary to facts available on records. The findings recorded in this aspect are wholly

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

iii. Rashmikant Kundalia Vs. UOI (2015) 54 Taxmann.com 200 (Bombay) and iv. ‘Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India’, 83 Taxmann.com 137(Guj).” 6. Heard. The issue involved in all these appeals is as to whether late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act has rightly been charged in the intimation issued u/s 200A of the Act while proceeding

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

TDS. 9. BECAUSE, while making the assessment the authorities below made various observations/ conclusions which are contrary to facts available on records. While making the addition submission made and evidences filed have been rejected arbitrarily. 10. BECAUSE, the order appealed against is arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the facts, material on record, law and principles of natural justice. The ‘appellant

SMT. NEETA SHARMA,AGRA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

iii) Sh. Mayaram 14.05.2009 21,500/- (iv) Sh. Vijay Kumar 11.06.2009 25,000/- 04.07.2009 30,000/- I.T.A No. 90/Agra/2017 3 (v) Sh. Vasudev 11.07.2009 60,000/- (vi) Sh. Ravindra Kumar 11.07.2009 71,978/- 16.07.2009 30,000/- 3,13,078/- 2.1 Vide letter dated 14.12.2012 assessee stated as under:- 1,1 That so called cash payment exceeding Rs.20,000/- for nine