BADARIPRASAD,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshbadriprasad, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Heerabagh Colony, Guna, Guna, Gwalior Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Arapr6314B

9. We note that on this legal issue there are divergent views expressed by different Hon’ble High Courts. However, it is noted that on this issue the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court i.e. Madras High Court (Division Bench) in Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. (supra) has expressed its view in favour of the assessee, and has concurred with

SUNITA,SAHU vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

9. We note that on this legal issue there are divergent views expressed by different Hon‟ble High Courts. However, it is noted that on this issue the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court i.e. Madras High Court (Division Bench) in Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. (supra) has expressed its view in favour of the assessee, and has concurred with

ASHOK SAHU,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(1), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

9. We note that on this legal issue there are divergent views expressed by different Hon‟ble High Courts. However, it is noted that on this issue the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court i.e. Madras High Court (Division Bench) in Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. (supra) has expressed its view in favour of the assessee, and has concurred with

HARICHARAN RATHORE,ASHOK NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,ASHOK NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshharicharan Rathore, Vs. Ito, 125, Path Kheda, Ashok Ashok Nagar, Nagar, Mp Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Csqpr0999M Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

9. We note that on this legal issue there are divergent views expressed by different Hon‟ble High Courts. However, it is noted that on this issue the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court i.e. Madras High Court (Division Bench) in Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. (supra) has expressed its view in favour of the assessee, and has concurred with

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

9 Surbhi Anand present appeal had merged in the subsequent rectification orders u/s 154 of the Act dated 30.01.2024 and 08.04.2024. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT (A) in para no. 4 & 5 of the order is reproduced as under: - “4. It is seen from the above and as stated by the appellant, that the Intimation u/s 143(1

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)

9 Section 15 of the UPUPD Act deals with the application for permission referred to in section 14 of the UPUPD Act. It contemplates making of the requisite enquiry of any land or building in contravention of the plans. 10 Section 16 of the UPUPD Act prohibits use of any land or building in contravention of the plans. 11 Chapter

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)

9 Section 15 of the UPUPD Act deals with the application for permission referred to in section 14 of the UPUPD Act. It contemplates making of the requisite enquiry of any land or building in contravention of the plans. 10 Section 16 of the UPUPD Act prohibits use of any land or building in contravention of the plans. 11 Chapter

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)

9 Section 15 of the UPUPD Act deals with the application for permission referred to in section 14 of the UPUPD Act. It contemplates making of the requisite enquiry of any land or building in contravention of the plans. 10 Section 16 of the UPUPD Act prohibits use of any land or building in contravention of the plans. 11 Chapter

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

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) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Payment for Advertisement Expenses to M/s MM Advertisers Rs. 5,76,791/-, M/s Jagran Prakashan Ltd. Rs. 38,155/-, M/s Unique Communication Rs.5,75,599/-. The aforesaid payment was paid for advertisement given in the various newspapers during the year, the parties has issued various small bills less than

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

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

1,11,45,660 may please be deleted. (9) Because Ld.CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition Rs 28, 77,400/- in respect of contractor contribution for city development. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the contribution from the contractor was voluntary and with specific consent for incurring the same

ANKITA PALIWAL,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALIGARH

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

TDS was deducted of Rs. 2,82,020/- in USA. The assessee is resident in India. The assessee filed its return of income within time allowed u/s. 139(1) wherein, the global income was disclosed and due credit of tax paid in USA was also deducted in view of the provisions of section 90 of the Act. It was submitted

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 was Rs. 1

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 was Rs. 1

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

TDS statements u/s 234E and interest u/s 220(2) tabulated as above. 9. Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that the impugned late filing fee has been imposed on the basis of section 200A (1

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

TDS statements u/s 234E and interest u/s 220(2) tabulated as above. 9. Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that the impugned late filing fee has been imposed on the basis of section 200A (1

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

TDS statements u/s 234E and interest u/s 220(2) tabulated as above. 9. Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that the impugned late filing fee has been imposed on the basis of section 200A (1

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

TDS statements u/s 234E and interest u/s 220(2) tabulated as above. 9. Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that the impugned late filing fee has been imposed on the basis of section 200A (1