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)

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 decision as discussed by the Ld. CIT(A). It is again submitted that neither the statute nor the decisions relied upon by Ld CIT(A), no where

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)

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 decision as discussed by the Ld. CIT(A). It is again submitted that neither the statute nor the decisions relied upon by Ld CIT(A), no where

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)

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 decision as discussed by the Ld. CIT(A). It is again submitted that neither the statute nor the decisions relied upon by Ld CIT(A), no where

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

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

23. 24/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of City Center, BPLS06510A A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Sabalgarh, Morena 24. 25/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of City Center, BPLS05120D A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Sabalgarh, Jiwajiganj, Morena 25. 26/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of City Center, BPLS11928A A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Gandhi Marg Kailaras, Morena 26. 27/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State

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

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

23. 24/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of City Center, BPLS06510A A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Sabalgarh, Morena 24. 25/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of City Center, BPLS05120D A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Sabalgarh, Jiwajiganj, Morena 25. 26/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of City Center, BPLS11928A A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Gandhi Marg Kailaras, Morena 26. 27/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State

SURBHI ANAND,SOUTH DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2023-24] Surbhi Anand, Acit, C-155, Basement, Lajpat Circle-1(1)(1), Nagar-2, South Delhi, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Sanjay Place, Delhi-110024 Agra, Uttar Pradesh-282002 Pan-Acypa6580B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sahib P. Satsangi, Ca Respondent By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 Order, Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

TDS u/s 193 of the Act amounting to Rs. 24,04,000/-. The assessee further submitted that she had disclosed the interest income on an accrual basis in her Income Tax Returns for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2022- 23, in accordance with 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

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

23,112/- 2014-15 Q-4- 24Q 23.05.2014 08 days 1,600/- 1,904/- The aforesaid Quarterly returns/statements were processed u/s 200(A) of the Act by the CPC(AO) and information was sent to the appellant, demanding the payment of late fee u/s 234E of the Act and interest u/s 220(2) of the Act as per the details

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

23,112/- 2014-15 Q-4- 24Q 23.05.2014 08 days 1,600/- 1,904/- The aforesaid Quarterly returns/statements were processed u/s 200(A) of the Act by the CPC(AO) and information was sent to the appellant, demanding the payment of late fee u/s 234E of the Act and interest u/s 220(2) of the Act as per the details

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

23,112/- 2014-15 Q-4- 24Q 23.05.2014 08 days 1,600/- 1,904/- The aforesaid Quarterly returns/statements were processed u/s 200(A) of the Act by the CPC(AO) and information was sent to the appellant, demanding the payment of late fee u/s 234E of the Act and interest u/s 220(2) of the Act as per the details

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

23,112/- 2014-15 Q-4- 24Q 23.05.2014 08 days 1,600/- 1,904/- The aforesaid Quarterly returns/statements were processed u/s 200(A) of the Act by the CPC(AO) and information was sent to the appellant, demanding the payment of late fee u/s 234E of the Act and interest u/s 220(2) of the Act as per the details

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

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

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

23,000/- (ii) Sh. Bachanu 14.05.2009 30,000/- (iii) Sh. Mayaram 14.05.2009 21,500/- (iv) Sh. Vijay Kumar 11.06.2009 25,000/- 04.07.2009 30,000/- I.T.A No. 90/Agra/2017 3 (v) Sh. Vasudev 11.07.2009 60,000/- (vi) Sh. Ravindra Kumar 11.07.2009 71,978/- 16.07.2009 30,000/- 3,13,078/- 2.1 Vide letter dated 14.12.2012 assessee stated as under:- 1,1 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

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

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

section 56(2) (viib) of the Act. The AO noted that the actual total consideration for the said property was Rs. 4,71,04,002/-, while the Circle Rate for the same was Rs. 9,01,23,000/- and since the assessee had 1/3rd share in the property, the consideration paid by the Assessee

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

section 56(2) (viib) of the Act. The AO noted that the actual total consideration for the said property was Rs. 4,71,04,002/-, while the Circle Rate for the same was Rs. 9,01,23,000/- and since the assessee had 1/3rd share in the property, the consideration paid by the Assessee