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 on the authority

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 a condition which

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

34 of case laws paper book] The revenue having assessed REPL's income in respect of such TDS claim, which it has not availed, cannot deny the assessee's claim on the mere technical ground that the income in respect of the said TDS claim was not that of the assessee, given that the assessee and REPL are sister concerns

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

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

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 perverse

VEENA SINGH,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

TDS of Rs.2,34,213/-. However, as the original return was filed belatedly under Section 139(4), the Assessing Officer observed that the revised return so filed was not acceptable. Further notice under Section 142(1) with a detailed questionnaire dated 14.12.2017 issued by Assessing Officer, went unanswered. The Assessing Officer, based on discrepancies and lack of explanations, made

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

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

10 best judgment assessment—Before CIT (A), assessee submitted that his total income was not exceeding 4 percent in preceding year when turnover was low and that high percent of net profit in AY 2006-07 was not possible when turnover was high— Assessee submitted that nature of business was such that they had to face lot of practical difficulties

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

34,37,842/- in the return of income filed, whereas, in the order u/s 143 (1) of the Act, dated 11.12.2013, TDS was allowed to the assessee to the extent of Rs. 8,19,493/-. The assessee submitted that he had invested in various Government bonds, (hereinafter referred to as 8% RBI Bond) through M/s Stock Holding Corporation of India

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

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’ reserves

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 as under

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 as under

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 as under

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 as under

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 as under

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

34,900/- remained outstanding at the end of the year. Accordingly, he proceeded to disallow the interest expenditure to the extent of Rs.75,019/- and he also disallowed a part of amount of deduction claimed u/s 80G to the extent of Rs.19,786/- and disallowance of indirect expenditure of Rs.50,000/-. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), AGRA vs. DR. ANIL KUMAR VERMA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the C

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaa.Y. :2009-10

10 Surendra Poddar 170000 170000 11 Shri Arun Chadha 500000 500000 12 Axis Bank 117500 481933 364433 0860101163454 13 Barkley Finance 169000 942626 773626 14 Renu Verma 150000 150000 15. Shree Timber Co. 200000 200000 Total 3253250 739572 2674559 5188237 13. The CIT(A), after considering the remand report had deleted the addition of Rs.51,88,237/- and had confirmed