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)

3 at page 51 of the Paper Book. Despite the objections by the assessee that the special auditor has no legal authority to decide the application of section 2(15) of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) having admitted that it is his (special auditor) opinion over the issue, has decided to adjudicate after examining the Act and various

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

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

3), the assessment made is illegal and bad in law. ITA No.216/Agr/2016, 183/Agr/2014,439/Agr/2015 & ITA No. 177/Agr/2014 13 (4) Because Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding activities of the appellant as commercial activity under the provisions of Sec.2(15). LdCIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not allowing benefit of section 11

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

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

section 145(3)— Assessee did not produce complete bills and vouchers of expenses claimed, therefore, it was reasonable and appropriate for CIT(A) to hold that prof it rate of 6 percent was fair and reasonable for purpose of computing business income of assessee—AO had applied exorbitant and unreasonable profit rate of12.5 percent without considering history of assessee

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

TDS is deducted. Ii also allows the credit to any other person as per subsection (3) of the Act. (ii) Though the Rule 37BA prescribed by CBDT requires certain procedure but it cannot supersede the provisions of law. Section 199 provides that, "(I) Any deduction made in accordance -with the foregoing provisions of this Chapter and paid fo the Central

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

11 has held as under : “3. Appellant(s) are the distributors of imported pre-packaged shrink wrapped standardized software from Microsoft and other Suppliers outside India. During the relevant assessment year(s) appellant(s) made payments to the said software Suppliers which according to the appellant(s) represented the purchase price of the abovementioned software. The ITO(TDS) held that

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

11 29.08.2024 W.P.No.23573/2024 in the Case of ADIT(IntTaxn), Hyderabad v. Deepanjan Roy followed the decision in W.P.No.13353 of 2024 dated 24.07.2024 [Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola (supra)] 12 05.02.2025 Sappahire Educational & Charitable Trust v. The ITO, Exemptions Ward, Trichy. - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai - ITA Nos.2416 & 2417/CHNY/2024 13 24.04.2025 Tecumseh Products India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner

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

11 29.08.2024 W.P.No.23573/2024 in the Case of ADIT(IntTaxn), Hyderabad v. Deepanjan Roy followed the decision in W.P.No.13353 of 2024 dated 24.07.2024 [Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola (supra)] 12 05.02.2025 Sappahire Educational & Charitable Trust v. The ITO, Exemptions Ward, Trichy. - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai - ITA Nos.2416 & 2417/CHNY/2024 13 24.04.2025 Tecumseh Products India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner

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

11 29.08.2024 W.P.No.23573/2024 in the Case of ADIT(IntTaxn), Hyderabad v. Deepanjan Roy followed the decision in W.P.No.13353 of 2024 dated 24.07.2024 [Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola (supra)] 12 05.02.2025 Sappahire Educational & Charitable Trust v. The ITO, Exemptions Ward, Trichy. - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai - ITA Nos.2416 & 2417/CHNY/2024 13 24.04.2025 Tecumseh Products India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner

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

11 29.08.2024 W.P.No.23573/2024 in the Case of ADIT(IntTaxn), Hyderabad v. Deepanjan Roy followed the decision in W.P.No.13353 of 2024 dated 24.07.2024 [Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola (supra)] 12 05.02.2025 Sappahire Educational & Charitable Trust v. The ITO, Exemptions Ward, Trichy. - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai - ITA Nos.2416 & 2417/CHNY/2024 13 24.04.2025 Tecumseh Products India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner

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

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

11 29.08.2024 W.P.No.23573/2024 in the Case of ADIT(IntTaxn), Hyderabad v. Deepanjan Roy followed the decision in W.P.No.13353 of 2024 dated 24.07.2024 [Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola (supra)] 12 05.02.2025 Sappahire Educational & Charitable Trust v. The ITO, Exemptions Ward, Trichy. - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai - ITA Nos.2416 & 2417/CHNY/2024 13 24.04.2025 Tecumseh Products India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner

AARA AGRO PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. DY.CIT., CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenalt.A No. 54/Agr/2021 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vs. Cit Circle-2 (1)(1) Agra Agro Private Limited Agra U.P. Anjana Cinema, 3/2 D.M.G. Road Agra U.P. 282007 Pan: Aagca8595F (Revenue) (Assessee)

11. The facts of Subhash Malik's case are summarized below:- Date 05.03.2002 Event Order passed u/s 143(3) 08.04.2002 Appeal filed before CIT(A) 25.09.2002 Appeal dismissed by CIT(A) 18.11.2002 Service of order 23.12.2002 Application u/s 154 filed before CIT(A) 20.10.2003 Application rejected by CIT(A) 25.11.2003 Service of order u/s 154 of CIT(A) Appeal filed

GARRISON EMGOMEER (E/M),AIR FIRCE STATION,MAHARAJPUR vs. JCIT.(TDS), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

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

TDS statements in Form 24Q. The penalty provision under Section 272A(2) is subject to the saving clause under Section 273B. Section 273B, which provides immunity from penalty if reasonable cause is established for such failure. In the instant case, the appellant assessee has contended that he was not afforded proper opportunity to make his submissions before the authorities below

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

TDS statements in Form 24Q. The penalty provision under Section 272A(2) is subject to the saving clause under Section 273B. Section 273B, which provides immunity from penalty if reasonable cause is established for such failure. In the instant case, the appellant assessee has contended that he was not afforded proper opportunity to make his submissions before the authorities below

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

TDS statements in Form 24Q. The penalty provision under Section 272A(2) is subject to the saving clause under Section 273B. Section 273B, which provides immunity from penalty if reasonable cause is established for such failure. In the instant case, the appellant assessee has contended that he was not afforded proper opportunity to make his submissions before the authorities below

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

TDS statements in Form 24Q. The penalty provision under Section 272A(2) is subject to the saving clause under Section 273B. Section 273B, which provides immunity from penalty if reasonable cause is established for such failure. In the instant case, the appellant assessee has contended that he was not afforded proper opportunity to make his submissions before the authorities below

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

TDS statements in Form 24Q. The penalty provision under Section 272A(2) is subject to the saving clause under Section 273B. Section 273B, which provides immunity from penalty if reasonable cause is established for such failure. In the instant case, the appellant assessee has contended that he was not afforded proper opportunity to make his submissions before the authorities below

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

TDS statements in Form 24Q. The penalty provision under Section 272A(2) is subject to the saving clause under Section 273B. Section 273B, which provides immunity from penalty if reasonable cause is established for such failure. In the instant case, the appellant assessee has contended that he was not afforded proper opportunity to make his submissions before the authorities below