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)

business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business for a cess or fee or any other consideration. In both the activities, in the nature of trade, commerce or business or the activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, the dominant and the prime objective

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)

business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business for a cess or fee or any other consideration. In both the activities, in the nature of trade, commerce or business or the activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, the dominant and the prime objective

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)

business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business for a cess or fee or any other consideration. In both the activities, in the nature of trade, commerce or business or the activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, the dominant and the prime objective

RISHAV SHELTERS P LTD,AGRA vs. JCIT RANGE-4 , AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the

business which is not justified and against the law. Under the facts and circumstances the addition of interest income should be made separately and the percentage of net profit as has to be considered excluding interest income; that in the immediately preceding year relevant to AY 2010-11 interest income was of Rs. 32,68,385/- whereas in the year

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

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

Income Tax &Anr., (2011) 53 DTR (Del) 130. Also in Tolani Education Society v. Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemption) &Ors., (2013) 351 ITR 184, the Bombay High Court has expressed a view in line with the Punjab and Haryana High Court view, following the judgments of this Court in the Surat Art Silk Manufacturers Association Case and Aditanar Educational

RAVI KUMAR AGARWAL, HUF,AGRA vs. I.T.O.-2(4), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

business income. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. 8. Considering the issue of disallowance of expenses claimed in the profit & loss account and disallowance of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation

ABHILASHA CONSTRUCTION,JHANSI vs. JCIT RANGE-6 , JHANSI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Income. 4. BECAUSE, no separate addition against interest can be made as the FDR’s are pledged with the Government Department against security towards Tender and as such form parts of total business receipts. BECAUSE, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held ‘appellant’ 5. eligible for statutory claim of Depreciation

M/S SHIVHARE ROADLINES,GWALIOR vs. JT. C.I.T., RANGE-2, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

business of transportation of goods as a transport contractor. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Ld. A.O. has disallowed Rs.46,80,814/- against excess depreciation claimed on trucks, trailers etc., and Rs.37,19,883/- u/s 43B as service tax not deposited before the due date of filing of return of income

MAHAMAYA BOORA UDYOG,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.6/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mahamaya Boora Udyog Ito Ward 2(1)(2) बनाम/ 15/469, Kali Bari Road Agra Vs. Noori Darwaja, Agra – 282 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaxfm-1475-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Gaurav Goyal (Ca) – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-02-2025

depreciation and partners’ remuneration at the rate of 1.76% for AY 2015-16 and 1.49% for AY 2016-17. However, Ld. CIT(A) refused to interfere with the estimation of 8%. Finally, the business income

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is partly

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

business of processing milk and manufacturing various milk products, including pasteurized milk, ghee, butter, and milk powder. The company operates a fully functional manufacturing facility located on Etah Road, Shikohabad, District Firozabad. For the assessment year under consideration, the appellant filed its return of income on 27.09.2013, declaring a total income of Rs. 1,07,22,700/- and the assessment

HARSH SALUJA,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

depreciation for Rs.25,967/- on computer and motor cycle, net profit comes to Rs.2,92,049/- which is 10.58% of the total turnover and other income shown from commission I.T.A No. 165/Agra/2016 4 etc is Rs.l,72,509/- and thus total taxable income after deduction under chapter VI A comes to Rs.3,57,770/-. 3. As per AIR information

M/S RAJEEV KUMAR CONTRACTOR PVT.LTD.,FIROZABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

business income in the earlier assessment years all along. 5. The Revenue next seeks to buttress the point that the assessee had been wrongly allowed deduction of partnership remuneration and depreciation

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1), GWALIOR vs. ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA, GWALIOR

Appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.16/Agr/2020 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta Acit - Circle-2 बनाम/ F-11, Harishankar Puram Gwalior Vs. Gwalior 474 002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Aclpg-8972-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.23/Agr/2020 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit Circle-2 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta बनाम/ Gwalior F-11, Harishankar Puram Vs. Gwalior 474 002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Aclpg-8972-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (Cit) – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

depreciation, interest on housing loan, car loan and interest paid to two entities. The same aggregated to Rs.9.14 Lacs which was disallowed u/s 57(iii). The Ld. CIT(A) noted that these expenditure were not claimed u/s 57(iii). The assessee earned business income

ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,GWALIOR vs. ACIT, GWALIOR

Appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.16/Agr/2020 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta Acit - Circle-2 बनाम/ F-11, Harishankar Puram Gwalior Vs. Gwalior 474 002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Aclpg-8972-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.23/Agr/2020 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit Circle-2 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta बनाम/ Gwalior F-11, Harishankar Puram Vs. Gwalior 474 002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Aclpg-8972-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (Cit) – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

depreciation, interest on housing loan, car loan and interest paid to two entities. The same aggregated to Rs.9.14 Lacs which was disallowed u/s 57(iii). The Ld. CIT(A) noted that these expenditure were not claimed u/s 57(iii). The assessee earned business income

MOHD SAGIR,ALIGARH vs. ACIT CIRCLE 4(1)(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal for the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

business and other sources. The assessee has filed return of income on 30.12.2017 declaring total income of Rs.18,46,500/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Thereafter a notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 21.09.2018. The Assessing Officer noted that no compliance was made. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notice u/s 142(1) along-with questionnaire

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), GWALIOR vs. SWASTIK ROADLINES P LTD, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is treated as partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

business of transportation wherein Vehicles/Trucks were mainly used as Plant & Machinery. During the year under consideration, assessee claimed depreciation to the tune of Rs.8.73 crores as detailed below (Annexure A): It is evident from the assessment order that ld AO has expressed his doubt in relation to claim of depreciation in respect of "Trucks" and not in relation

A.C.I.T.-4(1), AGRA vs. M/S ROGER INDUSTRIES LTD., AGRA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

business interest of the company. The sum of `20,75,000/- could not be treated as deemed dividend. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court followed the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing P.Ltd. reported as 318 ITR 476(Del). In the instant case also

ACIT CIRCLE-3, MATHURA vs. SHOBHA RAM SHARMA CONTRACTOR, MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that

depreciation and interest paid. Thus, ground of appeal No.1 to 4 are partly allowed. 13. The revenue in I.T.A No. 296/Agra/2017, has challenged the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in estimating the business income