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)

38 (In ITA Nos. 149 to 151/Agra/2017) If in the opinion of the State Government any-area within the State requires to be developed according to plan it may, by notification in the Gazette. declare the area to be a development area. 2 After declaration u/s 3 of the UPUPD Act, the State Government under section 4 of the UPUPD

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

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

38,053/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69C for the alleged failure to record the amount in books of account. The supporting evidence has arbitrarily been rejected by the authorities below. Further, section 69C has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant. The addition made u/s 69C is wholly illegal which may kindly

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

TDS)13 wherein this Court has held that the guidelines which are contrary to the provisions of the Act cannot be relied upon by the Revenue to reject an application for compounding filed by an assessee. The Court held that guidelines are subordinate to the principal Act or Rules, it cannot restrict or override the application of specific provisions enacted

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

TDS)13 wherein this Court has held that the guidelines which are contrary to the provisions of the Act cannot be relied upon by the Revenue to reject an application for compounding filed by an assessee. The Court held that guidelines are subordinate to the principal Act or Rules, it cannot restrict or override the application of specific provisions enacted

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

TDS)13 wherein this Court has held that the guidelines which are contrary to the provisions of the Act cannot be relied upon by the Revenue to reject an application for compounding filed by an assessee. The Court held that guidelines are subordinate to the principal Act or Rules, it cannot restrict or override the application of specific provisions enacted

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

TDS)13 wherein this Court has held that the guidelines which are contrary to the provisions of the Act cannot be relied upon by the Revenue to reject an application for compounding filed by an assessee. The Court held that guidelines are subordinate to the principal Act or Rules, it cannot restrict or override the application of specific provisions enacted

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

TDS)13 wherein this Court has held that the guidelines which are contrary to the provisions of the Act cannot be relied upon by the Revenue to reject an application for compounding filed by an assessee. The Court held that guidelines are subordinate to the principal Act or Rules, it cannot restrict or override the application of specific provisions enacted

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 Developers. It came to the notice of the AO that the assessee has made various payments without deducting TDS in violation of provisions of section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). These payments included payments to :- i) M/s Ronit Developers Rs.2,20,99,263/- ii) M/s M.M. Advertiser

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

2. The AO levied penalty of Rs.4,25,420/- on the assessee u/s 271C of the IT Act, as the assessee had failed to deduct TDS on interest paid on FDRs and to deposit the same. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty. I.T.A Nos. 65& 66/Agra/2017 3 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that

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

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

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

38 State Bank of 29 City Center, JBPS07992F /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior A.Y.2013-14 Maharajpur, laundi Road chhatpur 30- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 29,30,32 & 33 State Bank of 33 City Center, BPLS06413B /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior Laundi Mahoba Road Chattarpur 34- 50-56/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of 40 City Center, BPLS11851A A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior BPLS02712D Bhander

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

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

38 State Bank of 29 City Center, JBPS07992F /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior A.Y.2013-14 Maharajpur, laundi Road chhatpur 30- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 29,30,32 & 33 State Bank of 33 City Center, BPLS06413B /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior Laundi Mahoba Road Chattarpur 34- 50-56/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of 40 City Center, BPLS11851A A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior BPLS02712D Bhander

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

38,774 Brij Kishore Das 1. 2 Adityan Developers and Eng. Pvt. Ltd. 2,34,411 I 3. DharmenclraKuinarJatav 1,33,350 4. Veerendra Pathak 16,09,240 5. Mohit Gautam 13,28,630 6. Arvind Rawat 14,19,440 7. 12,81,600 Deepak Gautam 65,45,445 5 CO No.08/Agr/2017 4. Feeling aggrieved by the above said addition

M/S R.K. BAJPAI,AURAIYA vs. CIT -1, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S R.K. Bajpai, Vs..Dcit,Circle-1, Dibiyapur, Auraiya. Agra. Panno.Aaffr8521G (Assessee) (Revenue)

2 and 3, respectively before us, do not survive any longer. Accordingly both these additions are deleted. 8. So far as regards Ground No.4, the AO made addition on the following observations: “5. During the course of assessment proceeding, it is found that on perusal of P&L Account, c sum of Rs.4,92,250/- has been debited towards rent

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

2 appeal placing reliance upon CIT Vs Multiplan (P) Limited 38 ITD (Del). WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 3. BECAUSE, while making the assessment the authorities below were unjustified in making and sustaining the addition, referring to provisions of Section 44AD of the Act which section to not apply to the facts of the case in hands. 4. BECAUSE, upon

RAJVEER SINGH YADAV CONTRACTOR,ETAWAH vs. ITO-2(2)(5), , ETAWAH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 234B of the Act as the Income of the assessee is subjected to TDS. 5. 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. , I.T.A No. 179/Agra/2018 3 6. BECAUSE, the order appealed against

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

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