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

TDS. The Assessee further requested for valuation of the property by Valuation Officer, contesting that the Circle Rate did not reflect the Fair Market Value (hereinafter referred to as ‘FMV’). Thereafter, a reference was made to the Technical Unit by the AO, vide the letter dated 17-03-2022, by NFAC, for assistance in valuation and the District Valuation Officer

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 (1)/(1A) of the Income tax act. Thus the stand of the AO is hereby confirmed and the total demand raised of rupees 7,50,231/- by treating the assessee as assessee in default for not deducting TDS

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

section 194B based on the TDS return – Rs. 50,024 5. Since the aforesaid transactions were above the maximum amount

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

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

50. 20/Ag/2018 State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K City Center, BPLS11758F A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Rayatpura, Bhind 51- 66-90/Ag/2018 State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 52 City Center, BPLS11682G A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Barkhedahat, Guna 53- 68, 61, State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 57 City Center, BPLS11822G 85,,76,77 India, Branch- Gwalior /Ag/2018 Raghaogarh, A.Y.2013-14 Guna

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

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

50. 20/Ag/2018 State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K City Center, BPLS11758F A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Rayatpura, Bhind 51- 66-90/Ag/2018 State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 52 City Center, BPLS11682G A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Barkhedahat, Guna 53- 68, 61, State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 57 City Center, BPLS11822G 85,,76,77 India, Branch- Gwalior /Ag/2018 Raghaogarh, A.Y.2013-14 Guna

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)

TDS)[2010] 329 ITR 404 Kerala HC [ Page No. 48 ]  Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency vs CCIT[2012]28 Taxmann.com 288(AP) [ Page No. 50 ]  Himachal Pradesh Environment Protection &Pollution Control Board Vs CIT[2010] 42 SOT 343(Chd) [ Page No. 57 ]  Entertainment Society of Goa vs CIT [2013] 34 Taxman.com 210 (Panji) [ Page No. 61 ] & 355/Agra/2014

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)

TDS)[2010] 329 ITR 404 Kerala HC [ Page No. 48 ]  Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency vs CCIT[2012]28 Taxmann.com 288(AP) [ Page No. 50 ]  Himachal Pradesh Environment Protection &Pollution Control Board Vs CIT[2010] 42 SOT 343(Chd) [ Page No. 57 ]  Entertainment Society of Goa vs CIT [2013] 34 Taxman.com 210 (Panji) [ Page No. 61 ] & 355/Agra/2014

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)

TDS)[2010] 329 ITR 404 Kerala HC [ Page No. 48 ]  Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency vs CCIT[2012]28 Taxmann.com 288(AP) [ Page No. 50 ]  Himachal Pradesh Environment Protection &Pollution Control Board Vs CIT[2010] 42 SOT 343(Chd) [ Page No. 57 ]  Entertainment Society of Goa vs CIT [2013] 34 Taxman.com 210 (Panji) [ Page No. 61 ] & 355/Agra/2014

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

50 (SC). It was held in that case that the power of rectification of mistakes under section 154 of the Act is a very limited power which is restricted to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. Besides, it must be a mistake which is patent on the face of the record and does not call for detailed investigation

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

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

PANKAJ SUJORIA,MANSAROVAR COLONY vs. ITO 1(1), GWL, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Pankaj Sujoria, Vs. Ito, A-481, Mansarovar Ward-1(1), Colony, Shahpura, Gwalior Bhopal, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Arzps0280L Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

50,000/- in bank account during the year under consideration, the case of the Assessee was sought to be reopened under section 147 of the Act vide issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act on 28-03-2018 which was duly served on the Assessee on 31-03-2018. No return has been filed by the Assessee

M/S KALYANI BUILDWELL PRIVATE LTD,AGRA vs. ACIT CIRCLE4(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S Kalyani Buildwell (P) Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Kalyani Point, Near Tulsi Income-Tax, Circle-4(1), Agra Cinema, Bye-Pass Road, Agra Pan No: Aacck7095G (Assessee) (Revenue)

50,43,017/-for the assessment year 2011 – 12. However,the appellant in the original Income Tax Return e-filed on 29.09.2011 has declared total income of Rs 1,18,64,500/- only. Therefore, the AO has made multiple disallowances on account of expenses claimed under the heads: TDS written off Rs. 15,41,687; Directors salary

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

50,000/- which was sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we are of the opinion that the assessee’s explanation is without any merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 27. In the result, ground No. 2 of the Revenue appeal is dismissed and ground No. 2 of the assessee’s Cross-objection is also dismissed. 28. Ground

SHRI SWAMI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD 3(4), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenakapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Revenue) (Assessee) Kapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Assessee) (Revenue)

50%, i.e., the relief given by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee’s income from Rasleela would come to Rs.1,75,204/-. 9. It is in support of the above submissions, that the assessee seeks to place on record a copy of sale deed dated 29.12.2007 concerning the transaction of sale of immovable property and a copy of the assessment

SHRI SWAMI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD-3(4), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenakapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Revenue) (Assessee) Kapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Assessee) (Revenue)

50%, i.e., the relief given by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee’s income from Rasleela would come to Rs.1,75,204/-. 9. It is in support of the above submissions, that the assessee seeks to place on record a copy of sale deed dated 29.12.2007 concerning the transaction of sale of immovable property and a copy of the assessment

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

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

TDS in excess of tax payable on returned income. I.T.A No. 146/Agra/2019 3 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee-company had furnished each and every information/documents sought for by the Assessing Officer. Ground Nos.1 & 2: 4. The Ld.DR for the Revenue had submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) had wrongly allowed the disallowance u/s.40

ANUPAM MITTAL,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is hereby confirmed and the ground no. 1,2 and 6 are decided in negative and against the appellant.” 4.1. Similarly, the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the disallowance of interest of Rs.2,40,000/- on the loan of Rs.71,08,000/- by observing in para no.5.1 and 5.2 as under