MEERA YADAV,JHANSI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, ITA No. 359, 394 and 360/Agr/2025 are allowed for

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

TDS as per its profit and loss account. Assessing Officer was of the view that any interest on dues is a penalty and not acceptable as expenses under the Act. Hence, case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 was issued on 15.01.2020 and served upon the assessee. Assessee, however, did not file any return of income

MEERA YADAV,JHANSI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE2(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, ITA No. 359, 394 and 360/Agr/2025 are allowed for

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

TDS as per its profit and loss account. Assessing Officer was of the view that any interest on dues is a penalty and not acceptable as expenses under the Act. Hence, case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 was issued on 15.01.2020 and served upon the assessee. Assessee, however, did not file any return of income

MEERA YADAV,JHANSI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, ITA No. 359, 394 and 360/Agr/2025 are allowed for

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

TDS as per its profit and loss account. Assessing Officer was of the view that any interest on dues is a penalty and not acceptable as expenses under the Act. Hence, case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 was issued on 15.01.2020 and served upon the assessee. Assessee, however, did not file any return of income

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),AGRA, AGRA vs. EMCO EXPORTS, AGRA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

loss account towards the commission paid outside India, further observing that the assessee failed to deduct tax on the above payments as per TDS provisions u/s. 195 of the Act and called for the response of the assessee. Assessee submitted that assessee’s business entails services of foreign commission agents to deal with foreign clients and they have made payments

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

Loss of interest not received in Bank in A.Y. 2020-21 Rs. 1,44,000 adjusted from Maturity hence net income of Rs 02,00,000 considered in A.Y. 2023-24 on account of maturity of bond the bonds Therefore, the interest income earned on afore stated 8% Cumulative RBI Bond was disclosed in the ITRs on accrual

MAHIM PATRAN P. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT -2, AGRA

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

TDS was to be allowed - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee] ITA Nos. 195 & 196/Agr/2015 12 (12) In the case at present, the CIT reopened the assessment invoking section 263 without appreciating that the claim of the assessee was allowed by the assessing officer was a possible view which was taken by the department earlier also consistently except

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

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)

TDS which is shown as written off was offered to tax. Under the facts and circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in sustaining this disallowance and accordingly, the ground of appeal is rejected. 5. Apropos Ground No.2 & 3 are related to the disallowances on account of directors’ salary and staff salary

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

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

set aside the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court and since the Chief CIT's orders cancelling exemption which were set aside by the Punjab and Haryana High Court were passed almost solely upon the law declared by the Uttarakhand High Court, it is clear that these orders cannot stand. …………..” (5) That the ratio of the decision in case

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

TDS)13 wherein this Court has held that the guidelines which are contrary to the provisions of the Act cannot be relied upon by the Revenue to reject an application for compounding filed by an assessee. The Court held that guidelines are subordinate to the principal Act or Rules, it cannot restrict or override the application of specific provisions enacted

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

TDS)13 wherein this Court has held that the guidelines which are contrary to the provisions of the Act cannot be relied upon by the Revenue to reject an application for compounding filed by an assessee. The Court held that guidelines are subordinate to the principal Act or Rules, it cannot restrict or override the application of specific provisions enacted

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

TDS)13 wherein this Court has held that the guidelines which are contrary to the provisions of the Act cannot be relied upon by the Revenue to reject an application for compounding filed by an assessee. The Court held that guidelines are subordinate to the principal Act or Rules, it cannot restrict or override the application of specific provisions enacted

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

TDS)13 wherein this Court has held that the guidelines which are contrary to the provisions of the Act cannot be relied upon by the Revenue to reject an application for compounding filed by an assessee. The Court held that guidelines are subordinate to the principal Act or Rules, it cannot restrict or override the application of specific provisions enacted

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

TDS)13 wherein this Court has held that the guidelines which are contrary to the provisions of the Act cannot be relied upon by the Revenue to reject an application for compounding filed by an assessee. The Court held that guidelines are subordinate to the principal Act or Rules, it cannot restrict or override the application of specific provisions enacted

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

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