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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ii) That, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in directing to exclude Rs.17,56,27.767/- from the amount of Rs.42,24,51,350/- by ignoring the provisions of sec.13(8) and allowing exemption u/s 11(1 )(a) r.w. 11 (2) of the I.T. Act. (iii) That, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts by deleting the addition

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.

ii) CIT Vs. Ratilal Bacharilal & Sons (282 ITR 457 (Bom)) iii) Parin Furniture Ltd. Vs. PCIT, ITA Ns.86 to 89/Rjt/2022 Dt: 20.07.2022 iv) Kathivaran Ananthalakshmi Vs. PCIT, ITA No.30/Chny/2022 Dt:3.8.2022 v) Rabi Pal Vs. ITO, ITA No.193/Kol/2022 Dt: 05.09.2022 vi) R.M.Tradelink Vs. PCIT, ITA No.68/Rjt/2022 Dt: 16-09-2022 I.T.A.Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021/A.Ys.2014-15 & 2015-16 11. The Ld. Counsel submits

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.

ii) CIT Vs. Ratilal Bacharilal & Sons (282 ITR 457 (Bom)) iii) Parin Furniture Ltd. Vs. PCIT, ITA Ns.86 to 89/Rjt/2022 Dt: 20.07.2022 iv) Kathivaran Ananthalakshmi Vs. PCIT, ITA No.30/Chny/2022 Dt:3.8.2022 v) Rabi Pal Vs. ITO, ITA No.193/Kol/2022 Dt: 05.09.2022 vi) R.M.Tradelink Vs. PCIT, ITA No.68/Rjt/2022 Dt: 16-09-2022 I.T.A.Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021/A.Ys.2014-15 & 2015-16 11. The Ld. Counsel submits

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

143(3) was completed on 31.03.2016, assessing total income of appellant at Rs.2,59,89,010/- after rejecting his books of account u/s. 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and making additions on account of alleged low net profit and depreciation disallowance on fixed assets. The perusal of the impugned assessment order would reveal that the ld. Assessing Officer

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]

1. That the Ld. CIT (A)-1, Agra has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5,17,61,420/- because the applied percentage completion method in assessment order is correct as the "Project Completion Method" was not in existence before 01.04.2003. 2. That the decision of Ld. CIT (A)-1, Agra is not acceptable