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

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)

4,07,60,000 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

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

section 44AD of the Act are not applicable over the assessee's case. 4. That without prejudice to the foregoing grounds, in the alternative: - a) the authorities below could not justify the adoption of 8% net profit rate in the type of business carried on by the assessee, without quoting any comparable case or without assigning any logical or rational

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

section 44AD of the Act are not applicable over the assessee's case. 4. That without prejudice to the foregoing grounds, in the alternative: - a) the authorities below could not justify the adoption of 8% net profit rate in the type of business carried on by the assessee, without quoting any comparable case or without assigning any logical or rational

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

section 143(3) was completed on 31.03.2016, assessing total income of assessee at Rs.2,59,89,010/- after rejecting assessee’s books of account u/s. 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and making additions on account of low net profit and disallowance of depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against the above said assessment order dated

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

section 143(3) was completed on 31.03.2016, assessing total income of assessee at Rs.2,59,89,010/- after rejecting assessee’s books of account u/s. 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and making additions on account of low net profit and disallowance of depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against the above said assessment order dated

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

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

4) Because Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding activities of the appellant as commercial activity under the provisions of Sec.2(15). LdCIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not allowing benefit of section 11 of the Income Tax Act 1961 which the appellant is legally entitled by virtue of registration

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA vs. ALNOOR EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

4 and 5 raised by the revenue are dismissed.\n13. The Ground No. 6 raised by the revenue is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication.\n14. In the result, the appeal of the revenue for Assessment Year 2015-16 is dismissed.\nITA No 274/AGR/2024 – Assessment Year 2018-19 Revenue\nAppeal\n15. The Ground

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)

4 and 5 raised by the revenue are dismissed. 13. The Ground No. 6 raised by the revenue is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 14. In the result, the appeal of the revenue for Assessment Year 2015-16 is dismissed. ITA No 274/AGR/2024 – Assessment Year 2018-19 – Revenue Appeal 15. The Ground

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. CHITAVALSAH JUTE MILLS LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Acit, Vs. Chitavalasah Jute Mills Ltd, Range-1, 73-74, 201, Sheetala House, Faridabad Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccc6834D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

section 43B. Hence, the assessee gets a relief of Rs 13,90,285. 10.8 Ground No 4: That the A.O. was wrong in disallowing depreciation

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

DY C.I.T.-3, MATHURA vs. M/S KOSHDA BUILDCON PVT. LTD., MATHURA

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed for

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 is as per law and addition of Rs.5,17,61,420/-made by applying the Percentage Completion method is justified. 4. That the appellant craves leaves to add or delete or alter or modify any one or more ground (s) of appeal during the appellate proceedings. 5. That the order

SULTAN SINGH ,MATHURA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1) AGRA, AGRA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2015-16

section 154 rectification jurisdiction to disallow assessee’s claim of higher depreciation, which is not a rectifiable issue since involving subjective appreciation of the entire facts, in light of T. S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC). We, therefore, reverse the learned lower authorities’ impugned rectification process for this precise reason alone. All other pleadings

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

section 145(3) of the Act and considering the comparative profits by others in similar line of business which was in the range of 1.0 to 1.50% adopted the net profit @ 1.25% of the total turnover and estimated the net profit at Rs.2,32,64,681/-. Further, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs.2,79,729/- on account

M/S RAJEEV KUMAR CONTRACTOR PVT.LTD.,FIROZABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

depreciation, directors’ salary etc. had been wrongly allowed after rejecting the books and estimation of net profits but also section 57(3) interest deduction against interest income from other sources could not be accepted in the assessee’s favour. 4

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.

4 I.T.A.Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021/A.Ys.2014-15 & 2015-16 in relation to the value of the closing stock for the impugned year was found to show that this alleged difference was actual. Hence on a mere hypothesis this working has been made and the so-called net profit which takes into impact the closing stock of Rs.30,31,62,405 has been already

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.

4 I.T.A.Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021/A.Ys.2014-15 & 2015-16 in relation to the value of the closing stock for the impugned year was found to show that this alleged difference was actual. Hence on a mere hypothesis this working has been made and the so-called net profit which takes into impact the closing stock of Rs.30,31,62,405 has been already

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