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

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

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

2,02,84,696/-, on account of expenditure claimed against adjustment of advances, by Ignoring the facts brought on record that there was no supporting evidences for advance adjustment and entire amount remains unverifiable in nature. (xiii) That, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts by deleting the addition of Rs 89.91,305/-, on account of depreciation

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA vs. ALNOOR EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

2)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 4 and 5 raised by the revenue are dismissed.\n13. The Ground No. 6 raised by the revenue is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication.\n14. In the result, the appeal of the revenue for Assessment Year 2015-16 is dismissed.\nITA No 274/AGR/2024 – Assessment Year

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)

depreciation amount of Rs. 11,775/- 2 08.11.2017 Bonus Cash payment 1,31,750 Paid to various contractors for payment of bonus to their labour. Only payment to four contractors exceeded Rs. 10,000/-. However, payment to each labour did not exceed Rs. 10,000/-. 3 15.07.2017 Labour Cash payment 11,000 Paid to School for fee five children

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)

Depreciable Assets 10,00,000 35,25,00,000| B1,17,40,000 3,97,60,000 Total I.T.A No. 54/AGR/2021 12 On Condonation of Delay (Ground No.1) For the disposal of Ground No.1, it is considered expedient to invite the kind 2 attention ofthe Hon'ble Bench to the sequence of events which are tabulated below of PBP Date

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

Section 11(2) of the Act to be applied in future. The various receipts derived by the assessee in the form of dialysis receipts, xray receipts, interest receipts etc were applied for meeting out the charitable activities and all these facts are evidenced from audited balance sheet as well as income and expenditure account for the years ended

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

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

2. Since the issues involved in both these appeals are more or less similar, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. We take up ITA No. 344/Agr/2025 as a lead case. ITA No.344 & 343/Agr/2025 3. Brief facts of the case are, the appellant filed its return

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

2. Since the issues involved in both these appeals are more or less similar, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. We take up ITA No. 344/Agr/2025 as a lead case. ITA No.344 & 343/Agr/2025 3. Brief facts of the case are, the appellant filed its return

SHRI HARENDRA NATH GUPTA,FIROZABAD vs. P CIT CIRCLE-2, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

2(a) inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015 to order afresh. 4. Against this order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO has made due inquiry and he referred to the order sheet entry that where there was recorded that an independent

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

2) that “it would be inappropriate to reach the conclusion that the entire sales/purchases are mere financial terms flows. Given the fact that there is actual production on the face of it and the electricity consumption would corroborate the same, it would be appropriate that having rejected the books of accounts certain estimates of profits on account

SULTAN SINGH ,MATHURA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1) AGRA, AGRA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2015-16

2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that learned Assessing Officer had invoked its section 154 rectification jurisdiction to disallow assessee’s claim of higher depreciation

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]

depreciation expenses, have been added back by the appellant while computing its income chargeable to tax and claimed under the provisions of section 32. Thus, under the facts and circumstances of this case, no addition in respect of these expenses totaling Rs. 2

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.

2 of the assessment order. The perusal of the same will reveal that under the column “As per stock summary taken from hard disks impounded during survey” reproduced in Para 1 above the alleged net profit is the resultant of the so called (Sales + Closing Stock) minus (Opening Stock + Purchases + Direct expenses + Indirect expenses). The last column in the said

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.

2 of the assessment order. The perusal of the same will reveal that under the column “As per stock summary taken from hard disks impounded during survey” reproduced in Para 1 above the alleged net profit is the resultant of the so called (Sales + Closing Stock) minus (Opening Stock + Purchases + Direct expenses + Indirect expenses). The last column in the said

M/S RAJEEV KUMAR CONTRACTOR PVT.LTD.,FIROZABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

2 ITA No.744/Agr./2018 Rajeev Kumar Contractor Pvt. Ltd. Assessing Officer had inter alia applied/assessed net profit rate of 8% on the assessee’s total contract receipts, as reduced by the contractee’s deductions to the tune of Rs.2,46,86,589/- followed by various other statutory deduction. Learned PCIT thereafter issued his section 263 show-cause notice dated