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

section 145(3) of the Act and estimation of net profit @ 8% of total gross receipts and making addition of Rs.14,05,188. 4. That without prejudice to the foregoing grounds, in the alternative :- a) the authorities below could not justify the adoption of 8% net profit rate in the type of business carried on by the assessee, without quoting

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

234B & 234C of the 'Act'. 11. BECAUSE, the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice.” 2. Effectively ground No. 2(a) to 2(c) pertain to rejection of books of account and estimation of gross profit @ 16% as against 13.96% disclosed by the assessee. 3. Apropos these grounds ld. AR for the assessee

ABHILASHA CONSTRUCTION,JHANSI vs. JCIT RANGE-6 , JHANSI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Depreciation and deductions under section 40(b) of the Act even after application of profit rate. BECAUSE, the ‘appellant’ denies liability of interest 6. under section 234B of the ‘Act’. 7. BECAUSE, while making and sustaining the assessment the ‘AO’ and ‘CIT(A)’ has made various observations which are contrary to facts on records. ITA 314/Agr/2015 3

SHRI OM PRAKASH SINGH,MATHURA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, AGRA

In the result appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

234B of 8. the Act as the Income of the assessee is subjected to TDS. 9. BECAUSE, while making the assessment the authorities below made various observations/ conclusions which are contrary to facts available on records. While making the addition submission made and evidences filed have been rejected arbitrarily. 10. BECAUSE, the order appealed against is arbitrary, illegal, contrary

JAWAHAR LAL AGARWAL,AGRA vs. I.T.O., WARD-4(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

234B & 234C, which is wrong and illegal.” 2. The following additional ground has also been raised: “7. Because in any view, the Assessment framed u/s 143/147 of the IT Act is without Jurisdiction void-ab-initio, as the proceedings u/s 147/148 were initiated by other A.O. (not having Jurisdiction of the case of the appellant), the impugned Assessment/Additions