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

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 8. BECAUSE, assessment

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

section 80IB of the Act @ 25% which would mean that effective tax rate would be 22.50% whereas the sister concern M/s Darshan Udyog is required to pay tax @ 30%, therefore, there was no incentive to make sales at lower rate. In any case, in the detailed submissions before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) it demonstrated that practically no sales

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

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

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 SHRI KAILA DEVI ICE & COLD STORAGE,AGRA vs. I.T.O.-4(4), AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshm/S Shri Kaila Devi Ice & Cold Vs. Income Tax Officer, Storage Ward-4(4), 19-20, Adesh Nagar, Sheetla Agra Road, Khandari, Agra. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aazfs2787H Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

Section 145(3) of the Act and proceeded to estimate the net profit rate by taking the average of last two preceding years as declared by the assessee which is around 25% and worked out the profit as under:- Total bags unloaded 1,85,788/- Hire charges per bag of 50kg=Rs 70/-per bag Amount received for hire charges

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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

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 of “B.A. Balasubramaniam” (supra), no issue 25. of validity of penalty notice was under consideration. I.T.A

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)

25-01-2019 which is reproduced in pages 33 to 36 of the order of the ld CITA. In the said remand report, the ld AO submitted that in respect of Mohammed Imran, the reply in response to notice under section 133(6) of the Act was not received at all. Accordingly, it was clarified by the ld AO that

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

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

depreciation in a tabular form in the FYs 2020-21 to 2022-23 which are reproduced at page 9 of the order of the ld CIT(E). The ld CIT(E) on perusal of the said table observed that assessee has accumulated huge profit hence, working for profit motive and not for charitable purpose. This has been used

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

depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against the above said assessment order dated 31.03.2016, learned CIT(A) vide order dated 25.06.2025 affirmed the rejection of accounts and sustained the addition made by AO on account of low profit rate. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal in ITA No.342/Agr/2025 before the ITAT, which has been partly allowed by this

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

depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against the above said assessment order dated 31.03.2016, learned CIT(A) vide order dated 25.06.2025 affirmed the rejection of accounts and sustained the addition made by AO on account of low profit rate. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal in ITA No.342/Agr/2025 before the ITAT, which has been partly allowed by this

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

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 of “B.A. Balasubramaniam” (supra), no issue of validity of 25. penalty notice was under consideration

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

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 under the head of depreciation." 6. "Whether on the facts

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

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

25,759.76 By closing Stock 19,28,052.00 To Gross Profit 826.323.95 19,524.540.71 19524.540.71 To Accounting Charges 60,000.00 By Gross Profit 826.323.95 To Audit Fees 9,000.00 By Discount 528.597.68 ITA No. 437 and 438/AGR/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 To Bank Charges 28,391.16 By Income Declared u/s 39,13,263.00 133A To Conveyance 20,420.00 To Depreciation

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 10(23C) on the requirement that a college must maintain the status- quo, as it were, in regard to its knowledge based infrastructure. Nor for that matter is an educational institution prohibited from upgrading its infrastructure on educational facilities save on the pain of losing the benefit of the exemption under Section 10(23C). Imposing such a condition which