M/S. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION,ETAWAH vs. DCIT(TDS), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

TDS and on the rates prescribed and thereby confirming the demand of Rs. 4,17,508/- raised under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the I.T. Act. 2. The facts

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)

17 of JOPB No.1 ] In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the findings of the AO (Page 11 – 91 of his order. Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon following judicial orders:-  Infoparksvs.Dy.CIT(TDS)[2010] 329 ITR 404 Kerala HC [ Page No. 48 ]  Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency vs CCIT[2012]28 Taxmann.com 288(AP) [ Page No. 50 ]  Himachal Pradesh

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)

17 of JOPB No.1 ] In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the findings of the AO (Page 11 – 91 of his order. Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon following judicial orders:-  Infoparksvs.Dy.CIT(TDS)[2010] 329 ITR 404 Kerala HC [ Page No. 48 ]  Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency vs CCIT[2012]28 Taxmann.com 288(AP) [ Page No. 50 ]  Himachal Pradesh

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)

17 of JOPB No.1 ] In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the findings of the AO (Page 11 – 91 of his order. Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon following judicial orders:-  Infoparksvs.Dy.CIT(TDS)[2010] 329 ITR 404 Kerala HC [ Page No. 48 ]  Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency vs CCIT[2012]28 Taxmann.com 288(AP) [ Page No. 50 ]  Himachal Pradesh

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

TDS u/s 194A in respect of interest on FDR paid to trust. On 19.03.2015- order under section 201(1)/ 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, was passed and a demand of Rs. 7,32,951/- was raised. 17

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHOKNAGAR vs. AJIT SINGH , SHIVPURI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Through Virtual Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ajit Singh, Ashoknagar, Village-Haatodh, Madhya Pradesh Post-Kota, Shivpuri (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ccnps7470K Assessee By : Shri Vipin Upadhyay, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2025

TDS return – Rs. 50,024 5. Since the aforesaid transactions were above the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, the Learned AO proceeded to reopen the assessment under section 147 of the Act after obtaining necessary approval of the competent authority. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act stood issued to the Assessee on 30-3-2021, which

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

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

17- 34-36/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of 18 City Center, BPLS06616B A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Rajnagar, Chattarpur 19- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 19,21,22 & 23 State Bank of 22 City Center, BPLS09930E /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior A.Y.2013-14 Gallamandi, Bhind 23. 24/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of City Center, BPLS06510A A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Sabalgarh, Morena

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

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

17- 34-36/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of 18 City Center, BPLS06616B A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Rajnagar, Chattarpur 19- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 19,21,22 & 23 State Bank of 22 City Center, BPLS09930E /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior A.Y.2013-14 Gallamandi, Bhind 23. 24/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of City Center, BPLS06510A A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Sabalgarh, Morena

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

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)

TDS and advance tax at Rs.6,59,88,880/-. Thus the tax paid in advance was much more than payable as per normal provisions. However, there is short fall of advance tax as per the provisions of section 115JB. The tax payable as per the provisions of section 115JB worked out at Rs.7,48,02,970/- and the short fall

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

TDS u/s 194C of the IT Act. The CIT(A) held that in view of the amendment to section 40A(3) w.e.f. 01.10.2009, by unserved of the second proviso after section 40A(3A), the limit of Rs.20,000/- stood increased to Rs.35,000/-. Accordingly, she confirmed the disallowance of Rs.13,13,796/- to the extent of Rs.8

SMT ARCHANA DUTTA,MATHURA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Archana Dutta, Prop. M/S Vs..Acit,Circle-3, Dutta & Dutta Construction, Co., Mathura. 77E Dutta & Dutta Construction, Govind Nagar, Mathura. Panno.Afxpd7557B (Assessee) (Revenue)

section 234B of the Act as the Income of the assessee is subjected to TDS.” 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of Civil Contractor and work of road construction under government departments. Return of income was e-filed on 24.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs. 17

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

ACIT CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. SHARMA & ASSOCIATES FIRETECH PVT LTD, GWALIOR

In the result, we do not find any error as the assessee has failed to establish the

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2010-11

TDS returns and other 8 CO No.08/Agr/2017 contemporousness documents filed by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the creditors in the assessment proceeding. Since needful was not been by the AO in our opinion the deletion made by the ld. CIT(A) was in accordance with law. In the result, the ground raised by the revenue challenging the deletion

SH. VIRENDRA PAL TOMAR,MATHURA vs. I.T.O.-3(4), MATHURA

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

17,76,003/- as made by the learned 'AO' by estimating Profit @ 8% of Gross Receipt is highly excessive and needs to be reduced to minimum. 5. BECAUSE, the learned 'AO' was highly unjustified in making separate addition in respect 'Interest on FDR's on wrong presumption that 'investment in FDR's are just to earn interest' failing to take

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

TDS. The Assessee further requested for valuation of the property by Valuation Officer, contesting that the Circle Rate did not reflect the Fair Market Value (hereinafter referred to as ‘FMV’). Thereafter, a reference was made to the Technical Unit by the AO, vide the letter dated 17-03-2022, by NFAC, for assistance in valuation and the District Valuation Officer

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

TDS. The Assessee further requested for valuation of the property by Valuation Officer, contesting that the Circle Rate did not reflect the Fair Market Value (hereinafter referred to as ‘FMV’). Thereafter, a reference was made to the Technical Unit by the AO, vide the letter dated 17-03-2022, by NFAC, for assistance in valuation and the District Valuation Officer

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 was required to be deducted on the date of payment or credit whichever is earlier, but no tax was deducted when payments were made. Lastly, these persons did not appeared before the AO in response to summons issued under section 131 of the Act for personal appearance and even, the appellant had not produced those persons for examination