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

SMT. SARLA DEVI,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

10. We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. The issue is as to whether, as contended by the assessee, issuance of a notice under section 274 of the Act is a prerequisite sine qua non for the levy of concealment penalty u/s 271(1)(c), or whether it is not so, the initiation of penalty

SH. SACHIN ARORA,MATHURA vs. I.T.O.-3(4), MATHURA

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

10. We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. The issue is as to whether, as contended by the assessee, issuance of a notice under section 274 of the Act is a prerequisite sine qua non for the levy of concealment penalty u/s 271(1)(c), or whether it is not so, the initiation of penalty

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

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

Section 10(23C) on the requirement that a college must maintain the status- quo, as it were, in regard to its knowledge based infrastructure. Nor for that matter is an educational institution prohibited from upgrading its infrastructure on educational facilities save on the pain of losing the benefit of the exemption under Section 10(23C). Imposing such a condition which

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)

10. Assessment orderunder section 144 was passed by the ITO by an order dated 5- 3-2002. The assessee filed an appeal on 08.04.2002 before the Commissioner (Appeals). The said appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by an order dated 25.09.2002 and the said order was served upon the assessee on 18.11.2002. An application under section

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

1,72,20,863/- 10. It is seen that rate applied by the authorities below is without any basis, no case comparable to the case of the assessee has been cited, application of N.P rate @ 8% is applied without any material on records, ignoring the past trends of NP rate which shows that in A.Y 2009-10 on turnover

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**

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 | Welfare | Cash payment | 11,000 | Paid 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, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

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

depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against the above said assessment order dated 31.03.2016, learned CIT(A) vide order dated 25.06.2025 affirmed the rejection of accounts and sustained the addition made by AO on account of low profit rate. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal in ITA No.342/Agr/2025 before the ITAT, which has been partly allowed by this

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

depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against the above said assessment order dated 31.03.2016, learned CIT(A) vide order dated 25.06.2025 affirmed the rejection of accounts and sustained the addition made by AO on account of low profit rate. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal in ITA No.342/Agr/2025 before the ITAT, which has been partly allowed by this

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

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

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

10 best judgment assessment—Before CIT (A), assessee submitted that his total income was not exceeding 4 percent in preceding year when turnover was low and that high percent of net profit in AY 2006-07 was not possible when turnover was high— Assessee submitted that nature of business was such that they had to face lot of practical difficulties

MODERN AGENCIES,JHANSI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-6, JHANSI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly

Depreciation 29,159.30 To Electricity Expenses 18,360.00 To General Expenses 13,350.00 To Goods Expenses 67,027.00 To Labour Expenses 40,200.00 To Legal Expenses 8,000.00 To Misc Expenses 378.40 To Printing & Stationery 14,804.00 To Rent 90,000.00 To Round off 30.87 To Salary 1,82,400.00 To Sales promotion 23,450.00 To Shop Expenses

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

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

section 145(3) are invoked and best judgement assessment is made the Assessing officer in all such cases acquires jurisdiction to reach a different figure of profit against what is disclosed by the assessee. This view was propounded by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyogh 256 ITR 243 (Raj.) and stood duly

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

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

section 145(3) are invoked and best judgement assessment is made the Assessing officer in all such cases acquires jurisdiction to reach a different figure of profit against what is disclosed by the assessee. This view was propounded by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyogh 256 ITR 243 (Raj.) and stood duly

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.

10. The Ld. Counsel Shri Ranjan Chopra appearing for the assessee submits that the addition of net profit of Rs.19,90,13,470/- made by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment U/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 is based on stock summary taken from hard disk impounded during survey and the alleged net profit is the resultant

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.

10. The Ld. Counsel Shri Ranjan Chopra appearing for the assessee submits that the addition of net profit of Rs.19,90,13,470/- made by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment U/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 is based on stock summary taken from hard disk impounded during survey and the alleged net profit is the resultant

M/S MISS HILL EDUCATION SOCIETY,GWALIOR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 2. The ld. Counsel states as at the bar that ground no. 3 is not pressed. Rejected as not pressed. 3. Regarding ground nos. 1 and 2, the facts are that the AO rejected the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 10(23C) of the Act, at the time of filing of return