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

40,000/- on maturity and deducted 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

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

40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in view of SLP Granted by the Hon'ble I.T.A No. 146/Agra/2019 2 Supreme court in the case of CIT V/s Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. taxmann. Com63(SC)." 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Rule 31 AC A of the IT Rules 1962, and Board

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

section 201/201(1A) of the Act. In case, the payee declares the abovesaid income in their return of income and pays the due tax, the liability of the assessee is discharged and before making the disallowance, the Assessing Officer has to determine whether the assessee is in default or not u/s 201/201(1A). In 7 case, it is found that

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

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

TDS having been deducted during the year, the expenditure is allowable u/s 40(a). The disallowance is wholly illegal. The same may kindly be directed to be deleted. (12) Pause Ld.CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition Rs 46, 78, 719/- in respect of non inclusion of other receipt under infrastructure fund. The Ld.CIT

TOMAR AND BROTHERS,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(5), ETAWAH

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

section.” 8. Both the authorities below had noted several expenses incurred by the assessee to be without TDS and in absence of any cooperation from the assessee in this regard, disallowance of these expenses were made u/s. 40

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

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 of the Assessing Officer reveals the assessee

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

40-44 of the paper book). On page no 43 of paper book, at point nos. 3 and 4 of the reply to AO, it was stated about the updation error in its software caused in turn by some human errors, which allowed PANs of some of its customers to escape consideration for the purpose of deduction of TDS. Moreover

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

40(a)(ia)of the Income tax. Act in respect of interest paid to Barklay Finance Co. without deduction of IDS. 35. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The payment was made to BarklayFinance Co. which is a bankand is assessed to Income-tax. In our considered opinion, the assessee was not required to deduct

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

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

40-41/Ag/2018 State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 88 City Center, BPLS11862E A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior karchal, Sheopur Appellant by Shri Ashok Vijyayabargiya, CA And Shri Rajendra Khatwani, CA Respondent by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR PAN/TAN S. ITA No. Appellant Respondent No 89. DCIT-CPC- BPLAO2805 F 127/ Ag/ 2018 Ahemmad Ali TDS, A.Y.2013-14 Prop. R.K. Ghaziabad Motors

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

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

40-41/Ag/2018 State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 88 City Center, BPLS11862E A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior karchal, Sheopur Appellant by Shri Ashok Vijyayabargiya, CA And Shri Rajendra Khatwani, CA Respondent by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR PAN/TAN S. ITA No. Appellant Respondent No 89. DCIT-CPC- BPLAO2805 F 127/ Ag/ 2018 Ahemmad Ali TDS, A.Y.2013-14 Prop. R.K. Ghaziabad Motors

SHRI RAM PRASAD SOCIAL FOUNDATION,BHIND vs. TIO WARD-2(1), GWALIOR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2014-15

section 40(a)(ia) disallowance in the assessee’s hands on the ground that it had not complied with the TDS

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

40,000. Hence, these two aspects were considered to be income escaping assessment in the hands of the assessee and accordingly, the assessment was reopened vide issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act on 30-3-2021. In response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee did not file any return of income

MANISH MAHESHWARI,GWALIOR vs. JCIT RANGE-2, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him Though Specific Request Was Made To Admit The Same. Ground No. 2 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed Theaddition Of Rs. 67,530/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 40A(3) Of The Income Tax Act. (Ii) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Legally Erred In Rejecting The Appellant'Sspecificsubmissionand The Unavoidable Circumstances Under Which The Payment Wasmade. Ground No. 3 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed An Addition Of Rs. 1,11,038/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Disallowing The Claim Of Interest Paid Holding The Same To Be Not Allowable U/S 57(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act.”

TDS of Rs. 1236/-. The interest was allowed by the learned J.C.I.T. as allowable expenditure while passing the assessment order. The depositor is a salaried employee and amount advanced out of salary savings to earn interest for a period of six month. The amount has been received by the appellant through account payee cheque and refunded by account payee cheque

SHYAM SINGH YADAV,GWALIOR vs. ITO 2(2), GWL, GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shyam Singh Yadav, Vs. Ito, Opp. Doordarshan Kendra, Ward-2(2), Thatipur Gaon, Morar, Gwalior, Mp Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abhpy8702B Assessee By : Shri S. C. Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shalenndra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/02/2025

40,236/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained cash credits, without Shyam Singh Yadav appreciating the fact that the appellant was running a legitimate business during the relevant period. 3 That the CIT(A) failed to take into account that the amount in question was reflected

RISHAV SHELTERS P LTD,AGRA vs. JCIT RANGE-4 , AGRA

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

40 lakhs for both AYs, which meant, Section 44 AD had no relevance—Assessee had not filed any P&L or balance sheet for relevant AYs along with returns—Even vouchers given by assessee were defective—CIT (A) mainly scaled down such estimate for reason that in earlier AY 3.69% of turnover was considered to be appropriate for assessment—Assessee

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)

TDS on the same and hence the same should have been disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Based on these observations of CIT, AO made further enquiries and made disallowances u/s 40(a)(ia), addition towards unvouched expenses incurred on temporary structures and the rent of the equipment, assessing total income at Rs.1,28,29,943/-. 3. Ground

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)

40 (In ITA Nos. 149 to 151/Agra/2017) In this connection, it is respectfully submitted that the special auditor has no authority to examine the applicability of section 2(15) for holding the activities of the appellant as business activities. The responsibility of the auditor was limited to the examination of books of accounts as envisaged in section

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)

40 (In ITA Nos. 149 to 151/Agra/2017) In this connection, it is respectfully submitted that the special auditor has no authority to examine the applicability of section 2(15) for holding the activities of the appellant as business activities. The responsibility of the auditor was limited to the examination of books of accounts as envisaged in section