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

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

144 of the Act. However, during the course of 6 I.T.A No. 306/Agra/2017 I.T.A No. 296/Agra/2017 hearing before us it was specifically stated to be not pressed. Thus, in principle assessee has accepted to the rejection of the books of account. Therefore, in absence of any challenge by the assessee the rejection of accounts is final. After rejection of accounts

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

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

144 of the Act. However, during the course of 6 I.T.A No. 306/Agra/2017 I.T.A No. 296/Agra/2017 hearing before us it was specifically stated to be not pressed. Thus, in principle assessee has accepted to the rejection of the books of account. Therefore, in absence of any challenge by the assessee the rejection of accounts is final. After rejection of accounts

MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

depreciation as well as interest paid on borrowings are deemed to have been already given full effect to and no further deduction under these sections is allowable to the assessee. In view of the foregoing expressed provisions of section 44AD, this ground of the assessee is hereby rejected. 6. Ground No. 7(b) relates to treatment of interest income

MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

depreciation as well as interest paid on borrowings are deemed to have been already given full effect to and no further deduction under these sections is allowable to the assessee. In view of the foregoing expressed provisions of section 44AD, this ground of the assessee is hereby rejected. 6. Ground No. 7(b) relates to treatment of interest 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 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

144 of the Act. But before invoking the provisions of section 145, it was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to record that the books of account were not correctly maintained and were not complete and also to mention that the method of accounting followed by the assessee was not in accordance with the norm laid down

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

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

section 145(3)— Assessee did not produce complete bills and vouchers of expenses claimed, therefore, it was reasonable and appropriate for CIT(A) to hold that prof it rate of 6 percent was fair and reasonable for purpose of computing business income of assessee—AO had applied exorbitant and unreasonable profit rate of12.5 percent without considering history of assessee

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)

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 154 for the rectification of the order

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)

144 to 156 of the Paper Book No. 1). Hon’ble ITAT in Moradabad Development Authority, Jaipur Development Authority, Bangalore Development Authority (Supra) have analyzed applicability of judicial pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble J & K High Court and have found that above judicial pronouncement is not applicable to the development authorities having registration

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)

144 to 156 of the Paper Book No. 1). Hon’ble ITAT in Moradabad Development Authority, Jaipur Development Authority, Bangalore Development Authority (Supra) have analyzed applicability of judicial pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble J & K High Court and have found that above judicial pronouncement is not applicable to the development authorities having registration

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)

144 to 156 of the Paper Book No. 1). Hon’ble ITAT in Moradabad Development Authority, Jaipur Development Authority, Bangalore Development Authority (Supra) have analyzed applicability of judicial pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble J & K High Court and have found that above judicial pronouncement is not applicable to the development authorities having registration

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. CHITAVALSAH JUTE MILLS LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Acit, Vs. Chitavalasah Jute Mills Ltd, Range-1, 73-74, 201, Sheetala House, Faridabad Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccc6834D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

section 43B. Hence, the assessee gets a relief of Rs 13,90,285. 10.8 Ground No 4: That the A.O. was wrong in disallowing depreciation of Rs.6784622 /- stating non- verification while the case was completed u/s 144

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

section 43B was that the assessee should not take benefit from the indirect taxes which it receives and never pays to the government, and also claim a deduction of the same in arriving at the taxable income, hence a deduction of the same was to be allowed only on actual payment of those taxes, duties to the Government. 17 I.T.A

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

144. (o) “Muninaga Reddy” (supra). (p) “Jaysons Infrastructure India P. Ltd. vs. ITO”, ITA No. (q) 997/Bang/2015. “CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya Devi”, 216 ITR 660 (Bom). (r) 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

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

144. (o) “Muninaga Reddy” (supra). (p) “Jaysons Infrastructure India P. Ltd. vs. ITO”, ITA No. (q) 997/Bang/2015. “CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya Devi”, 216 ITR 660 (Bom). (r) 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

A.C.I.T.-4(1), AGRA vs. M/S ROGER INDUSTRIES LTD., AGRA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

144 (Mum) and judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hotel Hilltop (supra). In the case of ‘CIT vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd.’ (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has affirmed the order of I.T.A.T., Special Bench, Mumbai in the in case of ‘Bhaumik Colour’ (Supra). However, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has taken