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

d) Nos.2078/Ahd/2006 & 2526/Ahd/206. “M/s K.P. Madhusudananan vs. CIT”, Civil Appeal No. (e) 6465/2000 (SC). “CIT Ltd.”, (f) vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. ITA No.07/2010(Del) (H.C.). “CIT vs. HCIL Kalindee Arsspl”, ITA No.480/2012, Delhi High (g) Court. “Shyam Biri Works”, 259 ITR 625 (All). (h) “Sangam Enterprises vs. CIT”, 288 ITR 396 (All). (i) “Harish Hosiery Mart”, ITAT, Ahmedabad

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

d) Nos.2078/Ahd/2006 & 2526/Ahd/206. “M/s K.P. Madhusudananan vs. CIT”, Civil Appeal No. (e) 6465/2000 (SC). “CIT Ltd.”, (f) vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. ITA No.07/2010(Del) (H.C.). “CIT vs. HCIL Kalindee Arsspl”, ITA No.480/2012, Delhi High (g) Court. “Shyam Biri Works”, 259 ITR 625 (All). (h) “Sangam Enterprises vs. CIT”, 288 ITR 396 (All). (i) “Harish Hosiery Mart”, ITAT, Ahmedabad

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

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

d ails submitted for 1° atr of subsequent year, wherein, the tax deducted inthe 4thquarter of the year under consideration was deposited. The addition of Rs,1,11,45,660 may please be deleted. (9) Because Ld.CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition Rs 28, 77,400/- in respect of contractor contribution for city

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)

11. The facts of Subhash Malik's case are summarized below:- Date 05.03.2002 Event Order passed u/s 143(3) 08.04.2002 Appeal filed before CIT(A) 25.09.2002 Appeal dismissed by CIT(A) 18.11.2002 Service of order 23.12.2002 Application u/s 154 filed before CIT(A) 20.10.2003 Application rejected by CIT(A) 25.11.2003 Service of order u/s 154 of CIT(A) Appeal filed

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

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**

D E R** ### **PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.:** 1. The appeal in ITA Nos. 237 & 274/AGR/2024 for AYs 2015-16 and 2018- 19, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kanpur [hereinafter referred to as 'ld. CIT(A)', in short] dated 06.06.2024 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s

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)

D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA Nos. 237 & 274/AGR/2024 for AYs 2015-16 and 2018- 19, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kanpur [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 06.06.2024 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s

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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No. 336/Agra/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06) Jawahar Lal Agarwal Vs..ITO-4(2), S/o Shyam Lal Agarwal, Agra. Runkata, Agra. PAN No.ALFPA1067P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by Shri Navin Gargh, AR. Revenue by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 07.09.2017 Date of Pronouncement 24.11.2017 ORDER This is assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year

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

D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.160/AGR/2024, arises out of the order of the ld Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal [hereinafter referred to as „ld. CIT(E)” in short] dated 28.02.2024. 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. Commissioner of 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

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 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.

D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. These two appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Ld. PCIT, Agra – 1, dated 8.3.2021, passed u/s 263 of the Act for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. As the issue in both the appeals is identical these two appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off together

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.

D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. These two appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Ld. PCIT, Agra – 1, dated 8.3.2021, passed u/s 263 of the Act for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. As the issue in both the appeals is identical these two appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off together

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

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

Section 145(3) of the Act and proceeded to estimate the net profit rate by taking the average of last two preceding years as declared by the assessee which is around 25% and worked out the profit as under:- Total bags unloaded 1,85,788/- Hire charges per bag of 50kg=Rs 70/-per bag Amount received for hire charges

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