MANOJ KUMAR JAIN,AGRA vs. ITO-1(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri A.D. Jainassessment Year: 2002-03

Capital Gain, Share application money, share money, gifts etc. On enquiries it has been found that modus operandi of M/s. Ayushi Stok Brokers (P) Ltd., Sanjay Place, Agra is to take cash from the beneficiary (assessee), deposit the same in one or more of various accounts maintained or controlled by one Sh. R.K. Agarwal, then the money is transferred

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)

bogus income. This order is under challenge in the present appeal. By way of appeal effect, the assessee’s income was reduced to 6. Rs.11,87,436/-. Subsequently, the AO received AIR Information that the assessee, during the year, had sold an immovable property, having stamp value of Rs.36,50,000/-. The assessee having, as per the AO, not declared

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)

bogus income. This order is under challenge in the present appeal. By way of appeal effect, the assessee’s income was reduced to 6. Rs.11,87,436/-. Subsequently, the AO received AIR Information that the assessee, during the year, had sold an immovable property, having stamp value of Rs.36,50,000/-. The assessee having, as per the AO, not declared

M/S CHARAN SINGH ICE & STORAGE P LTD,HATHRAS vs. ITO 3(5), HATHRAS

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

capital gains shown by assessee was bogus and no separate reason disclosing satisfaction of Assessing Officer for formation of belief that income of assessee had escaped assessment had been recorded, notice issued u/s I.T.A Nos. 41 & 40/Agra/2017 8 148 of the Act was to be quashed and assessment made in pursuance thereof was to be annulled". It was submitted

M/S DEEPRAJ HOSPITAL P LTD,HATHRAS vs. ITO 3(5), HATHRAS

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

capital gains shown by assessee was bogus and no separate reason disclosing satisfaction of Assessing Officer for formation of belief that income of assessee had escaped assessment had been recorded, notice issued u/s I.T.A Nos. 41 & 40/Agra/2017 8 148 of the Act was to be quashed and assessment made in pursuance thereof was to be annulled". It was submitted

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

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

capital nature and allowing depreciation thereon is wholly illegal. The addition is wholly illegal which may kindly be directed to be deleted. 28. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 5,91,907/- out of Rs 17,57,752/- made by the assessing officer under the head "expenditure overstated

ITO 1(1)(1)(5), AGRA vs. SHANTI CONSTRUCTIONS , AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaincome Tax Officer, Ward,1(1)(5), Vs.. M/S Shanti Constructions, Ug-13, Aayakar Bhawan, Agra Shanti Madhuvan Plaza, Delhi Gate, Agra (Appellant) (Pan: Aaufs3185N) (Respondent)

bogus advances from customers the ld.CIT(A) deleted such addition by holding that the advances from customers shown by the 4 appellant as on 31.03.2012 were all old balances and no part of it was received during the impugned year and thus, he did not find any reason to support the action of the AO to add this amount