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

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

Depreciation adjustment - 0.85 ----------- ----------- (0.39) 22.93) ----------- ----------- Further, it was submitted that the assessee has been consistently following this policy in the earlier years also and has claimed as allowable expenses u/s. 37 of the Act. 18 14. On the other hand, the ld.DR had drawn our attention to page 12 & 13 of the CIT(A) order where

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.

depreciation and the consideration of only a part of it by the Assessing Officer who did not go into the issue with respect to the whole amount was an error that could be corrected u/s 263 of the Act. 16. The Ld. DR regarding order of AO being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue submits that

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.

depreciation and the consideration of only a part of it by the Assessing Officer who did not go into the issue with respect to the whole amount was an error that could be corrected u/s 263 of the Act. 16. The Ld. DR regarding order of AO being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue submits that

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

24. held that imposition of penalty was not justified and proper on the wrong claim of depreciation of Plant & Machinery, as the claim was debatable. No issue of notice u/s 274 was before the Hon’ble High Court for its consideration. The case of ‘Manjunatha’ (supra) was not even referred before the Hon’ble High Court. In the case

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

24. Delhi High Court has held that imposition of penalty was not justified and proper on the wrong claim of depreciation of Plant & Machinery, as the claim was debatable. No issue of notice u/s 274 was before the Hon’ble High Court for its consideration. The case of ‘Manjunatha’ (supra) was not even referred before the Hon’ble High Court

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

depreciation and interest paid. Thus, ground of appeal No.1 to 4 is partly allowed. 11. Vide Ground of Appeal No. 5, assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining addition of Rs.3,00,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act. The laerned Assessing officer has made the addition on account of his finding that

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

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

section 145(3) is wholly illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant. 6. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 24,68,23,586/- out of addition of Rs 42,24,51,350/- made by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) further erred

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 139(1) of the Act and 2 I.T.A No.313/Agra/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 the AO has further added an amount of Rs.7,05,147/- being the amount debited by the assessee on account of insurance keymen persons in the profit and loss account by observing that it is not being used for business purpose and disallowed

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

depreciation as provided in the books. The view has been upheld by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Navnit Lal C. Jhaveri vs. CIT reported at (1971) 80 ITR 582. The accumulated profits as on 16.09.2008 were Rs.21,24,721/-. Therefore, even if the advances received from the sister concern are treated as deemed dividend

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

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), GWALIOR vs. SWASTIK ROADLINES P LTD, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is treated as partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

24,00,000/- made on account of disallowance of Rs. 25,00,000/-from Freight and Truck Repair & Maintenance expenses." 5. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) justified in law in shifting onus of burden of proof upon the AO in deleting addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- made on account of disallowance

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

section 145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without identifying OR pointing out any specific defect OR inconsistency in the books of account maintained by the appellant in the regular course of business. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that transactions undertaken

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

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

section 144 i.e. ‘Best Judgment Assessment.’ 3. The assessment of income as per discussion above is framed below: “a. The value of phyiscial stock taken on date of survey was Rs.1,30,14,587/-. The partner of the firms, Sh. Mukesh Agarwal in his statement on the date of survey was confronted with this stock inventory which was taken

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

HARSH SALUJA,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

24,000/- for house hold expenses the same should have been inter alia telescoped otherwise. 3 BECAUSE in any view, the interest charged u/s 234A as per Notice of Demand dt. 28.02.2014 is wrong and illegal. 4 BECAUSE in any view, and without prejudice the aforesaid grounds, the Assessment and income assessed, addition made, interest charged in/and the Assessment Order