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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Facts, for convenience, are being taken from ITA No. 118/Agra/2015, the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 against the CIT(A)’s order confirming penalty of Rs.98,000/- imposed on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. AIR information was received in respect of the assessee, as per which, cash deposits amounting to Rs.65

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

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

2. Vide Grounds No. 1 to 4 assessee has challenged the action of the authorities below in making trading addition by application of N.P rate @8% on contract receipts ignoring the past history of the assessee which as per judicial opinion is a material consideration for estimation of income while proceeding under section 144 of the Act. 3. The assessee