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

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

1-3 ITO (TDS), AAACS 8577 K ITA.03,06 And State Bank of City Center, BPLS04808G 07 / Ag/ 2018 India, Main Gwalior A.Y.2013-14 Branch- Bada, Gwalior 4-5. 4&8/Agr/2018 State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K A.Y.2013-14 City Center, BPLM02526G India, Branch- Gwalior Industrial Estate Hazira, Gwalior 6. 05/ Agr/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of AYs 2013-14 City

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

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

1-3 ITO (TDS), AAACS 8577 K ITA.03,06 And State Bank of City Center, BPLS04808G 07 / Ag/ 2018 India, Main Gwalior A.Y.2013-14 Branch- Bada, Gwalior 4-5. 4&8/Agr/2018 State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K A.Y.2013-14 City Center, BPLM02526G India, Branch- Gwalior Industrial Estate Hazira, Gwalior 6. 05/ Agr/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of AYs 2013-14 City

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

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

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

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

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

SMT ARCHANA DUTTA,MATHURA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Archana Dutta, Prop. M/S Vs..Acit,Circle-3, Dutta & Dutta Construction, Co., Mathura. 77E Dutta & Dutta Construction, Govind Nagar, Mathura. Panno.Afxpd7557B (Assessee) (Revenue)

TDS.” 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of Civil Contractor and work of road construction under government departments. Return of income was e-filed on 24.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs. 17,96,170/- and the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. However, the assessment was completed by the AO at a total income of Rs.1

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

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

section 145(3)— Assessee did not produce complete bills and vouchers of expenses claimed, therefore, it was reasonable and appropriate for CIT(A) to hold that prof it rate of 6 percent was fair and reasonable for purpose of computing business income of assessee—AO had applied exorbitant and unreasonable profit rate of12.5 percent without considering history of assessee

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

1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in passing an ex parte order without providing the appellant with a fair opportunity to present his case despite being aware of the appellant's circumstances, existence of sufficient grounds and evidence intended to be placed on record. 2. That the CIT(A) has erroneously confirmed the addition

RAJVEER SINGH YADAV CONTRACTOR,ETAWAH vs. ITO-2(2)(5), , ETAWAH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 234B of the Act as the Income of the assessee is subjected to TDS. 5. 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. , I.T.A No. 179/Agra/2018 3 6. BECAUSE, the order appealed against

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. CHITAVALSAH JUTE MILLS LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Acit, Vs. Chitavalasah Jute Mills Ltd, Range-1, 73-74, 201, Sheetala House, Faridabad Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccc6834D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

section 43B. Hence, the assessee gets a relief of Rs 13,90,285. 10.8 Ground No 4: That the A.O. was wrong in disallowing depreciation of Rs.6784622 /- stating non- verification while the case was completed u/s 144. From the submissions made by the assessee, particularly, Page No. 14 of PB, it is seen that depreciation amounting to Rs.6784622 /- has already