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

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

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

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)

ii), two hundred fifty rupees. (2) The appeal shall be presented within thirty days of the following date, that is to say, (a)where the appeal is under section 248, the date of payment of the tax, or (b)where the appeal relates to any assessment or penalty, the date of service of the notice of demand relating

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

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

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

3), the assessment made is illegal and bad in law. ITA No.216/Agr/2016, 183/Agr/2014,439/Agr/2015 & ITA No. 177/Agr/2014 13 (4) Because Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding activities of the appellant as commercial activity under the provisions of Sec.2(15). LdCIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not allowing benefit of section

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

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]

section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 is as per law and addition of Rs.5,17,61,420/-made by applying the Percentage Completion method is justified. 4. That the appellant craves leaves to add or delete or alter or modify any one or more ground (s) of appeal during the appellate proceedings. 5. That the order

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