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)

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

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.17,56,27.767/- from the amount of Rs.42,24,51,350/- by ignoring the provisions

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

2. Vide order dated 30.8.2019. (copy placed at pg1-2/PB.) the said approval was denied by CIT(E) inter alia holding that: 4. From a perusal of the notes on activities submitted by the assessee trust it is noticed that the trust is getting CSR fund from Varuna Integrated logistics Pvt. Ltd. The applicant is, in the name

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

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)

56 11,03,17,000/- Agarwal g). In this regard, the assessee argued before CIT(A) that, the loose sheets of papers were the computer prints out, but the same cannot be treated as evidence u/s 34 of the Evidence Act and also stated that it was not speaking document, without any corroborated material found during the course of search

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)

56 11,03,17,000/- Agarwal g). In this regard, the assessee argued before CIT(A) that, the loose sheets of papers were the computer prints out, but the same cannot be treated as evidence u/s 34 of the Evidence Act and also stated that it was not speaking document, without any corroborated material found during the course of search

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)

56 11,03,17,000/- Agarwal g). In this regard, the assessee argued before CIT(A) that, the loose sheets of papers were the computer prints out, but the same cannot be treated as evidence u/s 34 of the Evidence Act and also stated that it was not speaking document, without any corroborated material found during the course of search