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

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

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

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

2. In absence of regular of books of account, reference is made to section 145(3) and assessment is framed in the manner as given in 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

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**

Section 40A(3) of the Act in any event. After the removal of these deficiencies, what remains is total payments made in the sum of Rs 3,76,998/ which are tabulated in page 33 of the Order of ld CITA which is reproduced as under:- | SN | DATE | NATURE OF EXPS. | DESCRIPTION | AMOUNT | REMARK | |----|-------------------|-----------------------------------------|---------------------------|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | | 19.01.2018 Mzr F.A. Tractor Trolley

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)

Section 40A(3) of the Act in any event. After the removal of these deficiencies, what remains is total payments made in the sum of Rs 3,76,998/- which are tabulated in page 33 of the Order of ld CITA which is reproduced as under:- SN DATE NATURE OF DESCRIPTION AMOUNT REMARK EXPS. 1 19.01.2018 Mzr F.A. Tractor being

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

3. There are two main issues identified for adjudication in the ground and additional grounds of appeals, as follows: a) Assessment of certain amount received by the assessee company from M/s. Euro Safety Footwear (P) Ltd as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and therefore, adjudicated together for brevity. b) Admission of additional evidence in the form

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

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

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

2. Books of accounts are duly audited u/s 44AB. Audit report, Balance sheet, Profit & Loss account with schedules were filed. No dispute of this fact. Accounts cannot be audited in the absence of books of accounts. No defect or discrepancy is pointed out. Method of the accounting is same as in the preceding years. 3. Section 44AD is not applicable

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

2(a) to (c) are allowed. 13. Ground No. 3 is not pressed. 13.1 Ground No.4 pertains to disallowance of prior period expenses. The ld. AR has drawn our attention to page 10 of the assessment order where the Assessing Officer at Sl. (D) has disallowed the amount of Rs. 13,52,866/- on account of prior period expenses

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

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 of 3

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

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

SH. JUGENDRA SINGH YADAV,AGRA vs. ACIT, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 145(3), he rejected the book version of the assessee on the premise that the assessee did not keep adequate vouchers for expenses incurred in cash and that the self made vouchers were not open for verification and non-maintenance of stock register. The Assessing Officer applied the net profit rate of 8% on the contract receipts

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

3 4. Apropos the merits of the additional ground, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the reassessment proceedings in this case were initiated by the ACIT-I, Agra, whereas the assessment order dated 28.12.2011 has been passed by the ITO-4(2), Agra. The assessee’s grievance is that this is not in accordance with law. According

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

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

section 145(3) are invoked and best judgement assessment is made the Assessing officer in all such cases acquires jurisdiction to reach a different figure of profit against what is disclosed by the assessee. This view was propounded by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyogh 256 ITR 243 (Raj.) and stood duly