JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. ACIT 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

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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

35,096/- u/s 69 of the Act and Rs.2,42,933/- u/s 69C of the Act, were confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), Ghaziabad vide order in Appeal No.48/2009-10/GZB-ALG, dated 21-02-2011. 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the penalty order dated 30.03.2012, as sustained by the ld. CIT(A), is void-ab-initio

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

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

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

35,99,93,000 being the payment made to UP Jal Nigam for sewage system. (13) Because the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs 2,64,68,984 in respect of Interest on FOR out of Path Kar receipts. (14) Because the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural

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

section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 2010-11 where income was estimated by application of N.P rate of 5.25%. 7 I.T.A No. 331/Agra/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) However, the past history of the assessee on the basis of Returns filed ranges from 1.88% to 2.04% except in A.Y 2010-11 where assessee agreed for being assessed

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

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

Depreciation 29,159.30 To Electricity Expenses 18,360.00 To General Expenses 13,350.00 To Goods Expenses 67,027.00 To Labour Expenses 40,200.00 To Legal Expenses 8,000.00 To Misc Expenses 378.40 To Printing & Stationery 14,804.00 To Rent 90,000.00 To Round off 30.87 To Salary 1,82,400.00 To Sales promotion 23,450.00 To Shop Expenses

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

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

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

35. It is submitted that owing to miscommunication of the date of receipt of impugned orders as 20.03.2018 instead of 09.03.2018, the appeals could be filed with a delay of 10 days. In support, an affidavit of Shri Mahesh Kumar Garg, partner of the ITA Nos. 388 & 389/Agr/2018 3 auditor firm is placed on record, which stands uncontroverted on behalf