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)

trust. It was submitted that the applicant had applied for its notification under section 10(46) of the Act, on 11.2.2019. Further Greater NOIDA Industrial Development authority had beennotified10(46) of the Central Government act for the activities which are similar in nature that of assessee vide notification dated 23.6. 2020. The ld AR prayed that suitable direction be issued

OM DARSHAN TURST ,BAREILLY vs. CIT-EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

charitable institute and only part of it were carried out by the assessee by doing three activities namely i) Warne Baby Fold ii) Salaam Balaak Trust iii) Jeevan Dhara Trust. We may also mentioned that the ld. CIT(E) while Examining a I.T.A No.349/Agra/2019 19 fresh may also examine the effect of section 56

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

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

trust attracted the proviso to section 2(15) and hence these were not for 'charitable purpose' and fur this reason provisions of section 13(8) of the I.T.Act are clearly attracted. (ii) That, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in directing to exclude Rs.17,56

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), AGRA vs. DR. ANIL KUMAR VERMA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the C

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaa.Y. :2009-10

56 lakhs and further out of this Rs. 32,53,250/- was the old opening balance in loan account coming over since last year which were opening balance during this year. Hence, fresh loan during the year amounting to Rs. 26,74,559/- and assessee filed the ITR and computation and bank statement of all these persons before

ITO EXMP, AGRA vs. HARDAYAL CHARITABLE & EDUCATIONAL TRUST, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the revenue appeals ITA No

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

Charitable and Educational Trust, Shikhobad registration and benefit of exemption u/s 12A and section 11 of the Act, by holding that the assessee was entitled for the exemption on income determined u/s 68 of the Act. Revenue has vehemently argued that exemption u/s 11 cannot be allowed on a different head as unexplained/unsecured loans taxed u/s 68 cannot be pegged

HARDAYAL CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST, FIROZABAD vs. ITO (EXP) AGRA, AGRA

In the result, both the revenue appeals ITA No

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

Charitable and Educational Trust, Shikhobad registration and benefit of exemption u/s 12A and section 11 of the Act, by holding that the assessee was entitled for the exemption on income determined u/s 68 of the Act. Revenue has vehemently argued that exemption u/s 11 cannot be allowed on a different head as unexplained/unsecured loans taxed u/s 68 cannot be pegged

ACIT-CIRCEL-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. MAYANK AGRAWAL, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Charitable Trust (2022) 450 ITR 368 (Mad) (HC ) iii) Bachittar Singh vs. CIT 2010 (AIR 328ITR400)(P&H HC) CO Nos.04, 03 & 05/Agr/2025 iv) Roshan Lal Sanchiti vs PC IT 2023 452ITR229 (SC) 41. Further he brought to our notice the retraction letter submitted by the assessee. He submitted that the reasons recorded are vague and it clearly shows that

ACIT-CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. PUNEET AGARWAL, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Charitable Trust (2022) 450 ITR 368 (Mad) (HC ) iii) Bachittar Singh vs. CIT 2010 (AIR 328ITR400)(P&H HC) CO Nos.04, 03 & 05/Agr/2025 iv) Roshan Lal Sanchiti vs PC IT 2023 452ITR229 (SC) 41. Further he brought to our notice the retraction letter submitted by the assessee. He submitted that the reasons recorded are vague and it clearly shows that

VISHWAMBHAR DAYAL AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Charitable Trust (2022) 450 ITR 368 (Mad) (HC ) iii) Bachittar Singh vs. CIT 2010 (AIR 328ITR400)(P&H HC) CO Nos.04, 03 & 05/Agr/2025 iv) Roshan Lal Sanchiti vs PC IT 2023 452ITR229 (SC) 41. Further he brought to our notice the retraction letter submitted by the assessee. He submitted that the reasons recorded are vague and it clearly shows that

DCIT EXMP.CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. BIRLA JAN SEWA TRUST, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13

charitable trust registered since 21.11.1977 and is running medical institution (hospital) and also in the imparting of education. The assesses trust besides have registered u/s 12AA of the Act was also approved u/s 10(23C)(via) of the Act. The assessee trust is running the hospital in the name of BIMR Hospital and BIMR Heart Centre. The assessee had filed