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

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

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

NARAYANI RATHORE,SHIVPURI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshnarayani Rathore, Vs. Assessment Unit, Peeroth Shivpuri, Income Tax Shivpuri, Mp Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dhgpr1886H

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

v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 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

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

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

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

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)

1) of the Act and'Original' Intimation issued 69 09.06.2019 of Original Intimation Upon receipt Rectification Application filed at CPC for rectifying interestexcessively/wrongly charged under section 234C of the Act 70 Since unheard. Grievance filed at CPC for not receiving 10.02.2020| Rectified Intimation' 28.06.2019 issued 'Revised having CPC alleges Intimation. However, no such 'Revised Intimation

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

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

v. Commissioner of Income Tax &Anr., (2011) 53 DTR (Del) 130. Also in Tolani Education Society v. Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemption) &Ors., (2013) 351 ITR 184, the Bombay High Court has expressed a view in line with the Punjab and Haryana High Court view, following the judgments of this Court in the Surat Art Silk Manufacturers Association Case

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)(c), which was inserted by finance Act 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The duration in the instant case is of prior

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)(c), which was inserted by finance Act 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The duration in the instant case is of prior

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)(c), which was inserted by finance Act 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The duration in the instant case is of prior

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)(c), which was inserted by finance Act 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The duration in the instant case is of prior

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

MARSHAL SECURITY SERVICES,AGRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

9-17)\nv) Weilburger Coatings (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax*\n[2024] 165 taxmann.com 232 (Kolkata - Trib.) IN THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH\n'C' (CLPB 18-19)\nvi) Rajesh Jain v ITO Ward-1 Jind (2007) 162 Taxman 212 (Chandigarh)\n(CLPB 20-22)\nvii) Gurbachan Kaur v Dy CIT (2019) TaxPub(DT) 8127 (Jp-Trib.) (CLPB

AL HAMD AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD,ALIGARH vs. DC/ACIT, ALIGARH

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

1. Because The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,85,70,973 being the commission paid to foreign agents. 2. Because the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice. the appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify or substitute any or all the grounds of appeal at any appropriate

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) &

9. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.8,13,863/-, more so when no incriminating material was found during the course of search and impugned addition has been made by recording incorrect facts