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

JHASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. DY. C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, AGRA

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

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

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

31,530.16 2,217.47 6,451.26 15.81% U/S 143 (3) 2010-11 50,720.84 327.04 38,320.82 2,404.81 10,322.25 20.35% U/S 143 (3) 2011-12 69,298.80 5170.08 57,959.74 2,865.75 13,643.39 19.69% U/S 143 (3) 2012-13 71,214.93 -3500.87 48,647.57 2,985.96 16,080.53 8.41% U/S 143 (3)/250 9 The para

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

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

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

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

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

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

31 AC A of the IT Rules 1962, and Board's circular No. 10 on 16.12.2013 binding upon the CIT(A)." 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case the CIT(A) justified in law in shifting onus of burden of proof upon the AO in deleting addition of Rs. 95,00,000/- made on account of disallowance ofRs.1

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.

section 68 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the entire order of 14 pages of the Ld. PCIT contains the submissions/objections of the assessee running into 11 pages and the conclusion of the Ld. PCIT is in one small para on last page. The Ld. Counsel submits that the Ld. PCIT in her entire order

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.

section 68 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the entire order of 14 pages of the Ld. PCIT contains the submissions/objections of the assessee running into 11 pages and the conclusion of the Ld. PCIT is in one small para on last page. The Ld. Counsel submits that the Ld. PCIT in her entire order

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