AARA AGRO PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. DY.CIT., CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenalt.A No. 54/Agr/2021 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vs. Cit Circle-2 (1)(1) Agra Agro Private Limited Agra U.P. Anjana Cinema, 3/2 D.M.G. Road Agra U.P. 282007 Pan: Aagca8595F (Revenue) (Assessee)

1. severalyears. During the year under consideration immovable property bearing number 3/2D Khasra No.513 Mauja Lashkarpur, M.G. Road, Agra along with depreciable assets was sold through Sale Deed(Page No.82 to 98) Registered on 7.3.2018 (A.Y 2018-19) for a consideration of Rs.35,25,00,000/-. The breakup of sale consideration is as under:- Building Plant & Total Land Nature

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

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

1), Limited, 318, Shambhoo Nagar, Firozabad. Shikohabad. PAN :AABCH7576E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Sahib P. Satsangee, C.A. Department by Sh. R.P. Maurya, CIT (A)-1/DR Date of hearing 16.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 29.12.2025 ORDER PER : S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the learned Commissioner

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

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

1), Limited, 318, Shambhoo Nagar, Firozabad. Shikohabad. PAN :AABCH7576E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Sahib P. Satsangee, C.A. Department by Sh. R.P. Maurya, CIT (A)-1/DR Date of hearing 16.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 29.12.2025 ORDER PER : S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the learned Commissioner

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

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

1,68,947/- by holding the amount transferred from Furniture and Fixture Account to Repair Account as capital expenditure and allowing depreciation thereon. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the transfer entry has no effect on the revenue and as such the same could have been directed to be deleted. 13. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both

SHRI OM PRAKASH SINGH,MATHURA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, AGRA

In the result appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

depreciation and interest paid. Thus, ground of appeal No.1 to 4 is partly allowed. 11. Vide Ground of Appeal No. 5, assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining addition of Rs.3,00,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act. The laerned Assessing officer has made the addition on account of his finding that

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)

Section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business

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)

Section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business

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)

Section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business

JAWAHAR LAL AGARWAL,AGRA vs. I.T.O., WARD-4(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)” 10. Now, as per section 147 of the Act, the AO may assess or reassess any income escaping assessment, if he has reasons to believe such escapement

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)

Section 40A(3) of the Act in any event. After the removal of these deficiencies, what remains is total payments made in the sum of Rs 3,76,998/- which are tabulated in page 33 of the Order of ld CITA which is reproduced as under:- SN DATE NATURE OF DESCRIPTION AMOUNT REMARK EXPS. 1 19.01.2018 Mzr F.A. Tractor being

M/S UMA GLASS WORKS,AGRA vs. PR.CIT.-1, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

1 to section 263 of the Act. It is submitted that similar view has been taken in the other decisions. Therefore the Ld. Counsel contends that the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court squarely applies to the Assessee and the order passed by the Ld. PCIT U/s 263 is liable to be quashed. 12. The Ld. Counsel further submits that

M/S UMA GLASS WORKS ,FIROZABAD vs. PR.CIT.-1, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

1 to section 263 of the Act. It is submitted that similar view has been taken in the other decisions. Therefore the Ld. Counsel contends that the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court squarely applies to the Assessee and the order passed by the Ld. PCIT U/s 263 is liable to be quashed. 12. The Ld. Counsel further submits that

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

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

section 145(3)— Assessee did not produce complete bills and vouchers of expenses claimed, therefore, it was reasonable and appropriate for CIT(A) to hold that prof it rate of 6 percent was fair and reasonable for purpose of computing business income of assessee—AO had applied exorbitant and unreasonable profit rate of12.5 percent without considering history of assessee

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

section 271(1)(a)(i). If we find that language to be ambiguous or capable of more meanings than one, then we have to adopt that interpretation which favours the assessee, more particularly so because the provision relates to imposition of penalty." The Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of ‘Tata Iron & Steel C. 17. Ltd. vs. Union

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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Depreciation and deductions under section 40(b) of the Act even after application of profit rate. BECAUSE, the ‘appellant’ denies liability of interest 6. under section 234B of the ‘Act’. 7. BECAUSE, while making and sustaining the assessment the ‘AO’ and ‘CIT(A)’ has made various observations which are contrary to facts on records. ITA 314/Agr/2015 3 8. BECAUSE, assessment

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

1,00,00,000/- made on account of disallowance under the head of depreciation." 6. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is perverse to the facts." 7. "Any other ground that may be adduced at the time of hearing." 2. Brief facts of the case are that

SULTAN SINGH ,MATHURA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1) AGRA, AGRA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2015-16

1) dated 28.07.2022, involving proceedings under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that learned Assessing Officer had invoked its section 154 rectification jurisdiction to disallow assessee’s claim of higher depreciation

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

section 145(3) of the Act, estimated the profit based on comparative profit shown by other players in the similar line, which is usually in the range of 0.8% to 1.25%. He observed that considering the totality of fact and circumstances of the case, net profit rate of 1% is found to be reasonable. He, therefore, estimated income @ 1