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

FIROZABAD SHIKOHABAD,FIROZABAD vs. C.I.T.-II, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Bench, Alongwith The Annexures Mentioned Therein. The Contents Thereof Are As Follows:

57. Ultimately, in the context of the factual matrix of that case, this court held that "charging a nominal fee to use the coding system and to avail the advantages and benefits ITA 55/Agra/2015 6 therein is neither reflective of the business aptitude nor indicative of the profit-oriented intent". The court further observed: - "Thus, the contention of the revenue

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

57,875/-.” 12. The CIT after considering the remand report have tabulated the same in the order in pargraph 5.3 to the following effect : SI. No. Name Op. Balance Debit during Credit Closing Balance 01-04-2008 the year during the 31-03-2009 year 1 Bharat Bansal 157875 300000 457875 2 Chandra Bhan 268000 268000 Verma 3 ICICI P/Loan

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S PREM MOTORS PVT LTD., GWALIOR

The appeals of the department are dismissed

57,600/- being equivalent to six month’s rent. As regards M/s TAPL it was noted that assessee had rented out to them 100% of Basement, 50% of ground floor, 50% of Mezzanine and 100% of first floor of its property aggregating to 12600 Sq Ft @ 10,000/- per month and they had made a deposit of ITA 322 & 327/Agra/2015

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