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

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

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 Bank of City Center, BPLS04530B A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Main Branch, Morena 27- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 28, 37 & 38 State Bank of 29 City Center, JBPS07992F /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior A.Y.2013-14 Maharajpur, laundi Road chhatpur

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

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

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 Bank of City Center, BPLS04530B A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Main Branch, Morena 27- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 28, 37 & 38 State Bank of 29 City Center, JBPS07992F /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior A.Y.2013-14 Maharajpur, laundi Road chhatpur

GUMAN SINGH KUSHWAH,SHIVPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHOKNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshgumnam Singh Kushwah, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Infront Of Collector Kothi, Ashok Nagar, Shiv Colony, Shivpuri, Mp Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bcjpk2729Q Assessee By : Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22/01/2026

TDS at the rate of 1% only. For this, the Learned AO proceeded to make an addition of 30% of the purchase consideration amounting to Rs 21 lakhs(7100000 * 30%) by applying the provisions of section 201 of the Act. Further, the assessee had sold a property on 25

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

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

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)

25. The assessee had also filled the written submissions to the following effect “ SUBMISSIONS IN ITA NOS. 256/Agr/2014 & 356/Agr/2014(Deptt. Appeal) & 355/Agra/2014 & SA Nos. 1 to 3/Ag/2017 36 (In ITA Nos. 149 to 151/Agra/2017) The appellant is in appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A). The appellant has submitted number of synopsis during the course of hearing on different

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)

25. The assessee had also filled the written submissions to the following effect “ SUBMISSIONS IN ITA NOS. 256/Agr/2014 & 356/Agr/2014(Deptt. Appeal) & 355/Agra/2014 & SA Nos. 1 to 3/Ag/2017 36 (In ITA Nos. 149 to 151/Agra/2017) The appellant is in appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A). The appellant has submitted number of synopsis during the course of hearing on different

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)

25. The assessee had also filled the written submissions to the following effect “ SUBMISSIONS IN ITA NOS. 256/Agr/2014 & 356/Agr/2014(Deptt. Appeal) & 355/Agra/2014 & SA Nos. 1 to 3/Ag/2017 36 (In ITA Nos. 149 to 151/Agra/2017) The appellant is in appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A). The appellant has submitted number of synopsis during the course of hearing on different

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)

section 194C of the Act were not violated by the assessee. There was therefore no error in the order of the AO so as to cause prejudice to the Revenue and the revisionary proceedings-on this issue are therefore set aside.” 6. Qua the second issue, it has been held (page 25, para 12 of the order) by the Tribunal

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

section 143(1) as under. A.Y. 2018-19 - Rs.32,00,000 A. Y. 2019-20 - Rs. 33,44,000 A.Y. 2020-21 - Rs. 32,00,000 A. Y. 2021-22 - Rs. 25,00,000 A. Y. 2022-23 - Rs.25,00,000 Total - Rs. 1,47,44,000 Further, it has been 2 Surbhi Anand submitted that out of the Interest

AVNEESH KUMAR CHATURVEDI,AGRA vs. I.T.O-2(2), AGRA

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

25% flat disallowance out of the expenses incurred on Diwali, Salary expense, Miscellaneous expense, and tour and travelling expenses. A notice under section 148 was issued on 19.03.2014 to the assessee in respect of two issues- one, the difference of Rs.3,61,123/- noticed by the A.O. between the figures of gross receipts and the contract receipts

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

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 so called cash payment exceeding Rs.20,000/- for nine payment amounting to Rs.3,13,078/- w.r.t. disallowance

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)

25,00,000| B1,17,40,000 3,97,60,000 Total I.T.A No. 54/AGR/2021 12 On Condonation of Delay (Ground No.1) For the disposal of Ground No.1, it is considered expedient to invite the kind 2 attention ofthe Hon'ble Bench to the sequence of events which are tabulated below of PBP Date Date Event service

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

TDS certificates issued by the assessee. In any case, non submission of supporting evidences, if any, for professional fees payment cannot be a ground for rejection of permanent registration u/s 12AB. If there is any infirmity in those professional fees payment, the same could be looked into at the time of assessment proceedings. In any event

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

25. In rebuttal, the ld. AR had submitted that the Bharat Bansal is a regular income-tax assessee and is maintaining mercantile method of accounting and therefore, there is difference in the books of assessee and that of Bharat Bansal. 26. We have heard the rival contention and perused material available on record. The confirmation of account clearly shows

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), GWALIOR vs. SWASTIK ROADLINES P LTD, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is treated as partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

25,00,000/-from Freight and Truck Repair & Maintenance expenses." 5. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) justified in law in shifting onus of burden of proof upon the AO in deleting addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- made on account of disallowance under the head of depreciation." 6. "Whether on the facts

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

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) &

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