MAHIM PATRAN P. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT -2, AGRA

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

30 to 34 of case laws paper book] The revenue having assessed REPL's income in respect of such TDS claim, which it has not availed, cannot deny the assessee's claim on the mere technical ground that the income in respect of the said TDS claim was not that of the assessee, given that the assessee and REPL

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

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

BABOO LAL NIMORIA,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

30,519/- and deducted TDS of Rs.4,48,064/- and M/s. Deep & Veer\nConstruction gross receipt of Rs.4,04,040/- and deducted TDS of Rs.4,040/-.\nSince the assessee has declared gross receipts of Rs.3,49,31,066/- which\nincluded labour and wages payment of Rs.38,15,744/- made directly by HCCL.\nHe observed that gross receipts as confirmed

PRAGATI SINGH,GWALIOR vs. CIT, AAYKAR BHAVAN GWALIOR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in the above terms

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year:2013-14

30% of Rs.2,74,978 as amended in section 40(a)(ia) is illegal, unjustified and bad in law.” 3. The solitary issue in the present appeal relates to addition made to the income of the assessee of Rs.2,74,978/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source. A perusal of the order

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)

30 (In ITA Nos. 149 to 151/Agra/2017) chargeable to tax. In such cases, there must be complete identity between the contributors and the participants. Therefore, where industry or trade associations claim both to be charitable institutions as well as mutual organizations and their activities are restricted to contributions from and participation of only their members, these would not fall under

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)

30 (In ITA Nos. 149 to 151/Agra/2017) chargeable to tax. In such cases, there must be complete identity between the contributors and the participants. Therefore, where industry or trade associations claim both to be charitable institutions as well as mutual organizations and their activities are restricted to contributions from and participation of only their members, these would not fall under

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)

30 (In ITA Nos. 149 to 151/Agra/2017) chargeable to tax. In such cases, there must be complete identity between the contributors and the participants. Therefore, where industry or trade associations claim both to be charitable institutions as well as mutual organizations and their activities are restricted to contributions from and participation of only their members, these would not fall under

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

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

30,400/- 32,832/- 2015-16 Q-1- 24Q 04.04.2015 244 days 48,800/- 52,704/- 2015-16 Q-3- 24Q 04.04.2015 108 days 21,600/- 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

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

30,400/- 32,832/- 2015-16 Q-1- 24Q 04.04.2015 244 days 48,800/- 52,704/- 2015-16 Q-3- 24Q 04.04.2015 108 days 21,600/- 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

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

30,400/- 32,832/- 2015-16 Q-1- 24Q 04.04.2015 244 days 48,800/- 52,704/- 2015-16 Q-3- 24Q 04.04.2015 108 days 21,600/- 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

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

30,400/- 32,832/- 2015-16 Q-1- 24Q 04.04.2015 244 days 48,800/- 52,704/- 2015-16 Q-3- 24Q 04.04.2015 108 days 21,600/- 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

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

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

30 of his order mentioned that that the assessee had provided details i.e. bills, copy of account, TDS in relation to the payment to all parties. Further it was mentioned relevant details on the transaction are verifiable with the books of account of the assessee and assessee had produced the invoices of transactions and TDS return in respect

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

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

30,630\nTotal Bogus\nPurchases\n83,47,111\n10,42,68,751\n68,22,031\n5,43,77,066\n54,58,13,054\n36,17,16,578\n108,13,44,591\nIt was observed by Ld. AO that the bogus purchases in respect to first\ntwo parties was compiled from the bank statements of the two concerns\nas the assessee

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

30,630\n5,43,77,066 54,58,13,054 36,17,16,578 108,13,44,591\nIt was observed by Ld. AO that the bogus purchases in respect to first\ntwo parties was compiled from the bank statements of the two concerns\nas the assessee did not produce the ledger of these two parties. There\nwas possibility that