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)

13(8) are not at all applicable in the nature of receipts shown by the appellant. Ld. CIT(A) at page 83 of the appellate order has summarized various sources of fund of the authority in clause (a) to (e) and has found that the receipts under clause (c),(d) and (e) are directly related to the trade, commerce

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

d) the income from a property, deposit, security, unit or share held in the name of a deductee is owned jointly by the deductee and other persons and the income is assessable in their hands in the same proportion as their ownership of the asset: Provided that the deductee files a declaration with the deductor and the deductor reports

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

d) of the Act dated 31.03.2022; and thereafter, notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 31.03.2022 by raising Ground No.5 as noted supra, the assessee contends that notices issued by the JAO after 29.03.2022 expressing his desire to reopen the assessment is bad in law after the CBDT Faceless Scheme notified from 29.03.2022 (supra) read with section 151/151A

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

d) of the Act dated 31.03.2022; and thereafter, notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 31.03.2022 by raising Ground No.5 as noted supra, the assessee contends that notices issued by the JAO after 29.03.2022 expressing his desire to reopen the assessment is bad in law after the CBDT Faceless Scheme notified from 29.03.2022 (supra) read with section 151/151A

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

d) of the Act dated 31.03.2022; and thereafter, notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 31.03.2022 by raising Ground No.5 as noted supra, the assessee contends that notices issued by the JAO after 29.03.2022 expressing his desire to reopen the assessment is bad in law after the CBDT Faceless Scheme notified from 29.03.2022 (supra) read with section 151/151A

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

d) of the Act dated 31.03.2022; and thereafter, notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 31.03.2022 by raising Ground No.5 as noted supra, the assessee contends that notices issued by the JAO after 29.03.2022 expressing his desire to reopen the assessment is bad in law after the CBDT Faceless Scheme notified from 29.03.2022 (supra) read with section 151/151A

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

d) of the Act dated 31.03.2022; and thereafter, notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 31.03.2022 by raising Ground No.5 as noted supra, the assessee contends that notices issued by the JAO after 29.03.2022 expressing his desire to reopen the assessment is bad in law after the CBDT Faceless Scheme notified from 29.03.2022 (supra) read with section 151/151A

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

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

d ails submitted for 1° atr of subsequent year, wherein, the tax deducted inthe 4thquarter of the year under consideration was deposited. The addition of Rs,1,11,45,660 may please be deleted. (9) Because Ld.CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition Rs 28, 77,400/- in respect of contractor contribution for city

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)

13. 234C of the Act. The appellant company had filed e-return declaring income of Rs.26,60,05 400/- under normal provisions of the Act which inter alia included only capital gains viz a viz long term capital gains worked out on sale of land and short term capital gains worked out on sale of depreciable assets. As the book

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

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

1-3 ITO (TDS), AAACS 8577 K ITA.03,06 And State Bank of City Center, BPLS04808G 07 / Ag/ 2018 India, Main Gwalior A.Y.2013-14 Branch- Bada, Gwalior 4-5. 4&8/Agr/2018 State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K A.Y.2013-14 City Center, BPLM02526G India, Branch- Gwalior Industrial Estate Hazira, Gwalior 6. 05/ Agr/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of AYs 2013-14 City

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

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

1-3 ITO (TDS), AAACS 8577 K ITA.03,06 And State Bank of City Center, BPLS04808G 07 / Ag/ 2018 India, Main Gwalior A.Y.2013-14 Branch- Bada, Gwalior 4-5. 4&8/Agr/2018 State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K A.Y.2013-14 City Center, BPLM02526G India, Branch- Gwalior Industrial Estate Hazira, Gwalior 6. 05/ Agr/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of AYs 2013-14 City

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

D of this order, which is arbitrary, uncalled for unjustified and based on surmises and conjunctures. 3 2. The order passed by the Income tax Officer is erroneous and contrary to law and facts, against the weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 3. The assessee craves leave to add, alter or vary the grounds of appeal before

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

ANKITA PALIWAL,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALIGARH

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

TDS was deducted of Rs. 2,82,020/- in USA. The assessee is resident in India. The assessee filed its return of income within time allowed u/s. 139(1) wherein, the global income was disclosed and due credit of tax paid in USA was also deducted in view of the provisions of section 90 of the Act. It was submitted

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

D. The out standing balance or transactions in some cases in the confirmation filed during the assessment proceedings and filed before your goodself differs. As per the confirmations filed by the assessee before the AO and before your honour, it is noticed that the transactions in the case of Shri Bharat Bansal and Nisha Agrawal are as under

OMKAR MEMORIAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,GWALIOR vs. CIT[EXEMPTION], BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Omkar Memorial Vs. Cit(E), Charitable Society, Bhopal Room No. 201, Ii Floor, Reac, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaa08054B Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2025

D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.160/AGR/2024, arises out of the order of the ld Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal [hereinafter referred to as „ld. CIT(E)” in short] dated 28.02.2024. 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. Commissioner of Income

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

D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A Nos. 65& 66/Agra/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARs-2012-13 & 2013-14) State Bank of India, Addl. CIT-(TDS), Kanpur. Vrindavan, Mathura. PAN No.AGRS11846C (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by Ms. Prarthna Jalan, & Shri Chanchal Jain, ARs Revenue by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR. Date of Hearing 11.12.2017 Date of Pronouncement 25.01.2018 ORDER This is assessee’s appeal for assessment year

KAMLESH KATARE,GWALIOR vs. ITO, TDS-GWALIOR, GWALIOR

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 111/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Kamlesh Katare Ito (Tds) बनाम/ 79, Jotinagar, Thatipur Gwalior Vs. Morar, Gwalior "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir/Tan No.Bplk-03165-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, Ca- Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Levy Of Late Filing Fees U/S 234E Qua Tds Return In Form 26Q For 4Th Quarter Of Financial Year 2012-13, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. 2. From The Records, It Emerges That The Assessee Was Saddled With Later Filing Fees U/S 234E For Rs.22,800/- While Processing Tds Return As Filed By The Assessee. The Assessee Sought Rectification Thereof U/S 154 Which Was Rejected By Ld. Ao. Aggrieved, The Assessee Filed Further Appeal Which Met With No Success. Aggrieved, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us.

13-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by levy of late filing fees u/s 234E qua TDS return in Form 26Q for 4th Quarter of financial year 2012-13, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2. From the records, it emerges that