DY C.I.T.-3, MATHURA vs. M/S KOSHDA BUILDCON PVT. LTD., MATHURA

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed for

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

Depreciation 13,23,232/- viii. Finance charges (interest etc.) 4,08,98,375/- ix. Salary (Construction) 33,48,498/- Total 5,17,61,420/- Above mentioned expenses may not be allowed as the same is treated to be included in estimated cost of the project, no further revenue expenses (above expenses) may be allowed. 4. However, vide its reply dated

OMKAR MEMORIAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,GWALIOR vs. CIT[EXEMPTION], BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Omkar Memorial Vs. Cit(E), Charitable Society, Bhopal Room No. 201, Ii Floor, Reac, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaa08054B Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2025

deduction of tax at source by the assessee. The finding given by us with regard to payment of professional charges supra shall apply to payment of incentive expenditure also. Accordingly adverse inference drawn by the ld CIT(E) on this account for rejecting the registration, in our considered opinion, cannot be upheld. 8. With regard to next query

MARSHAL SECURITY SERVICES,AGRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Depreciation Expenses, Dress Expenses, Employee\nProvident Fund, Employee State insurance, Rebate & Discount, Rent\nExpenses, Staff Salaries Expenses.\n7. BECAUSE, the Ld. \"CIT(A)' before dismissing the appeal on the\nground that appellant failed to furnish any documentary evidence with\nregard to the expenses claimed by him, ought to have provided\nopportunity of hearing to the appellant to put forth

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA vs. ALNOOR EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

depreciation amount of\nRs. 11,775/-\n2\n08.11.2017\nBonus\nCash payment\n1,31,750\nPaid to various contractors for\npayment of bonus to their labour.\nOnly payment to four contractors\nexceeded Rs. 10,000/-. However,\npayment to each labour did not\nexceed Rs. 10,000/-.\n3\n15.07.2017\nLabour\nWelfare\nCash payment\n11,000\nPaid to School for fee five children

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA vs. ALNOOR EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

depreciation amount of Rs. 11,775/- 2 08.11.2017 Bonus Cash payment 1,31,750 Paid to various contractors for payment of bonus to their labour. Only payment to four contractors exceeded Rs. 10,000/-. However, payment to each labour did not exceed Rs. 10,000/-. 3 15.07.2017 Labour Cash payment 11,000 Paid to School for fee five children

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

depreciation disallowance on fixed assets. The perusal of the impugned assessment order would reveal that the ld. Assessing Officer while considering the net profit rate of the assessee has given a comparative analysis of the turnover and profits of the appellant for the three assessment years as under: A.Y. Sales (Rs.) GP (Rs) G.P. Rate NP(Rs.) N.P. Rate

M/S SHRI KAILA DEVI ICE & COLD STORAGE,AGRA vs. I.T.O.-4(4), AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshm/S Shri Kaila Devi Ice & Cold Vs. Income Tax Officer, Storage Ward-4(4), 19-20, Adesh Nagar, Sheetla Agra Road, Khandari, Agra. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aazfs2787H Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

deduction u/s 40(b) of the act=25% Net Profit = 1,30,05,160*25% = Rs. 32,51,290:00" 5. The Learned AR before me pointed out that the average of net profit declared in preceding two years was not 25% as observed by the Learned AO. The Learned AR pointed out that the Learned AO had arbitrarily increased