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)

22. The appellant has no where disputed that the claim u/s 11 cannot be examined during the subsistence of registration u/s 12A. Only the objects cannot be examined by the Assessing Officer during the subsistence of registration u/s 12A as the same is not within his domain. Entire receipts are in accordance with the provisions of which exemption under section

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

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the ld. CIT (A) is bad in law and not in consonance with the facts of the case. 3. The Ld CIT ( A) failed to appreciate the fact that all the building material was supplied by the contractor and the appellant has first to paid against

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

MARSHAL SECURITY SERVICES,AGRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

22,815/-\n20,30,704/-\n6.\nEmployee State Insurance\n15,29,419/-\n3,82,355/-\n7.\nRebate & discount\n2,35,195/-\n58,799/-\n8.\nRent Expenses\n1,44,000/-\n36,000/-\n9.\nStaff Salaries Expense\n27,33,027/-\n6,83,256/-\nTotal\n6,14,81,388/-\n1,53,70,347/-\nLearned AR has referred order dated 17.03.2025 passed by Jaipur

CIVIL SURGEON CUM HOSPITAL SUPERINTANDENT BHIND (M.P.),BHIND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS OFFICE GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

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

2) tabulated as above. 9. Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that the impugned late filing fee has been imposed on the basis of section 200A (1)(c), which was inserted by finance Act 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The duration in the instant case is of prior to 01.06.2015. Ld. AR has referred consolidated order dated 31.05.2018 passed

CIVIL SURGEON CUM HOSPITAL SUPERINTANDENT BHIND (M.P.),BHIND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS OFFICE, GWALIOR

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

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

2) tabulated as above. 9. Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that the impugned late filing fee has been imposed on the basis of section 200A (1)(c), which was inserted by finance Act 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The duration in the instant case is of prior to 01.06.2015. Ld. AR has referred consolidated order dated 31.05.2018 passed

CIVIL SURGEON CUM HOSPITAL SUPERINTANDENT BHIND,BHIND vs. AESSESSING OFFICER TDS OFFICE, AAYAKAR BHAVWAN CITY CENTRE FLOOR FIRST

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

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

2) tabulated as above. 9. Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that the impugned late filing fee has been imposed on the basis of section 200A (1)(c), which was inserted by finance Act 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The duration in the instant case is of prior to 01.06.2015. Ld. AR has referred consolidated order dated 31.05.2018 passed

CIVIL SURGEON CUM HOSPITAL SUPERINTANDENT BHIND (M.P.),BHIND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS OFFICE GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

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

2) tabulated as above. 9. Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that the impugned late filing fee has been imposed on the basis of section 200A (1)(c), which was inserted by finance Act 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The duration in the instant case is of prior to 01.06.2015. Ld. AR has referred consolidated order dated 31.05.2018 passed

PANKAJ SUJORIA,MANSAROVAR COLONY vs. ITO 1(1), GWL, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Pankaj Sujoria, Vs. Ito, A-481, Mansarovar Ward-1(1), Colony, Shahpura, Gwalior Bhopal, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Arzps0280L Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

TDS of Rs 32,318/-. Pankaj Sujoria 4. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. I find that the Assessee had not filed his return of income under section 139 of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12. Based on the information received that Assessee had made time deposit amounting to Rs 2

SHRI RAM PRASAD VERMA PURVA MADHYAMIC VIDHYALAY ,MATHURA vs. ACIT,CPC-TDS, , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumar

22. It is hardly required to be stated that, as per the well established principles of interpretation of statute, unless it is expressly provided or impliedly demonstrated, any provision of statute is to be read as having prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Under the circumstances, we find that substitution made by clause (c) to (f) of sub-section

SHRI RAM PRASAD VERMA PURVA MADHYAMIC VIDHYALAY ,MATHURA vs. ACIT,CPC-TDS,GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumar

22. It is hardly required to be stated that, as per the well established principles of interpretation of statute, unless it is expressly provided or impliedly demonstrated, any provision of statute is to be read as having prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Under the circumstances, we find that substitution made by clause (c) to (f) of sub-section

SHRI RAM PRASAD VERMA PURVA MADHYAMIC VIDHYALAY ,MATHURA vs. ACIT,CPS-TDS, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumar

22. It is hardly required to be stated that, as per the well established principles of interpretation of statute, unless it is expressly provided or impliedly demonstrated, any provision of statute is to be read as having prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Under the circumstances, we find that substitution made by clause (c) to (f) of sub-section

SH. RAM PRASAD VERMA PURVA MADHYAMIC VIDHYALAY,MATHURA vs. ACIT-CPC TDS., , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumar

22. It is hardly required to be stated that, as per the well established principles of interpretation of statute, unless it is expressly provided or impliedly demonstrated, any provision of statute is to be read as having prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Under the circumstances, we find that substitution made by clause (c) to (f) of sub-section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

2. 2014-15 252588623 14972000 5.93% 3. 2015-16 248338259 11868700 4.78% 4. 2016-17 242233350 7957500 3.29% 5. 2017-18 251988634 3482300 1.38% 6. 2018-19 235646705 1304100 0.55% 7. 2019-20 282348412 5104400 1.81% The assessee did not produce purchase ledgers of these 6 bogus parties and Ld. AO tabulated purchases on the basis of payments made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

section 132A. Similar is the\ndecision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs.\nContinental Warehousing Corporation [2015; 374 ITR 645] which has\nbeen followed in subsequent decision in CIT V/s Gurinder Singh Bawa\n(79 Taxmann.com 398 05/10/2015) which deals with a situation where\nin the original return of income was processed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

section 132A. Similar is the\ndecision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs.\nContinental Warehousing Corporation [2015; 374 ITR 645] which has\nbeen followed in subsequent decision in CIT V/s Gurinder Singh Bawa\n(79 Taxmann.com 398 05/10/2015) which deals with a situation where\nin the original return of income was processed

MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

2. 2014-15 252588623 14972000 5.93% 3. 2015-16 248338259 11868700 4.78% 4. 2016-17 242233350 7957500 3.29% 5. 2017-18 251988634 3482300 1.38% 6. 2018-19 235646705 1304100 0.55% 7. 2019-20 282348412 5104400 1.81% The assessee did not produce purchase ledgers of these 6 bogus parties and Ld. AO tabulated purchases on the basis of payments made