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

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

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

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

36,19,196/- while giving effect of the order of ITA No.216/Agr/2016, 183/Agr/2014,439/Agr/2015 & ITA No. 177/Agr/2014 12 CIT(A) u/s 251. The direction as well as addition in wholly illegal which may kindly be directed to be deleted. 31. Because the appellant craves leave to alter/ modify grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” “(1

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

1,72,20,863/- 10. It is seen that rate applied by the authorities below is without any basis, no case comparable to the case of the assessee has been cited, application of N.P rate @ 8% is applied without any material on records, ignoring the past trends of NP rate which shows that in A.Y 2009-10 on turnover

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)

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 the statement made by the Assessee, that Mohammed Imran

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

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

Depreciation and Trade Tax M/s Rishav Shelters (P) Ltd Comparative Chart Assessment Year 2011-12 2010-11 2009-10 2008-09 Receipt (Value of Work Done) 348308159.00 197614470.00 127250050.00 167572483.00 Net Profit 14051029.00 11936562.00 7602557.00 9187118.00 Other Income credited to Profit Less: & 1815789.00 3268385.00 929328.00 2750290.00 Loss A/c (Interest Income) 12235240.00 8668177.00 6673229.00 6436828.00 Net Profit Percentage on gross receipt

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

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

section 145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without identifying OR pointing out any specific defect OR inconsistency in the books of account maintained by the appellant in the regular course of business. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that transactions undertaken

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

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

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

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

36,76,866/-respectivelyand latest order dated 22.03.2019 passed by the Bench in ITA No 331(Agra)/2016 the case of Shri Om Prakash Singh Vs ACIT-Circle-3, Mathura (APB 84-105) in which average N.P rate of 3.50% on gross receipts of 14,35,07,199/-was applied. He thus pleaded that appellant Gross receipts being Rs.27

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

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

36,76,866/-respectivelyand latest order dated 22.03.2019 passed by the Bench in ITA No 331(Agra)/2016 the case of Shri Om Prakash Singh Vs ACIT-Circle-3, Mathura (APB 84-105) in which average N.P rate of 3.50% on gross receipts of 14,35,07,199/-was applied. He thus pleaded that appellant Gross receipts being Rs.27