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

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

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

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

143(3) of the Act. In conclusion, the AO vide par 3, observed as follows: 2. In absence of regular of books of account, reference is made to section 145(3) and assessment is framed in the manner as given in section 144 i.e. ‘Best Judgment Assessment.’ 3. The assessment of income as per discussion above is framed below

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

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

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

ii) where it was held that "interest income is separate and independent of contract receipts. Apart from that, by no stretch of imagination could interest income be considered as contract receipt for estimation of income by applying a net profit rate to the contract receipts". 9. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has arbitrarily

M/S GINNI FILAMENTS LTD.,MATHURA vs. A.C.I.T., RANGE-3, MATHURA

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

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

143 (3)/250 9 The para 9 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2012-13 accepting the G.P. rate of 8.41% based on the remand report, was as under : "9. G.P. Addition Rs. 82,68,05,337/- The AO has made an addition ofRs. 82,68,05,337/- by applying the average GP 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.

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 ,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

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

M/S SHIVHARE ROADLINES,GWALIOR vs. JT. C.I.T., RANGE-2, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

ii) of item-III of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962, higher rate of depreciation is admissible on motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxis used in business of running them on hire. A question has been raised as to whether, for deriving the benefit of higher depreciation, motor lorries must be hired out to some other person

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