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

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

depreciation and interest paid. Thus, ground of appeal No.1 to 4 is partly allowed. 11. Vide Ground of Appeal No. 5, assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining addition of Rs.3,00,00,000/- under section

A.C.I.T.-4(1), AGRA vs. M/S ROGER INDUSTRIES LTD., AGRA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

4 such shareholder is a member or a partner and in which he has a substantial interest is applicable in the case of assesse company. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed strong reliance on the impugned order. 7. We have heard both the parties on this issue and have perused the relevant material

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

ABHILASHA CONSTRUCTION,JHANSI vs. JCIT RANGE-6 , JHANSI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

4. BECAUSE, no separate addition against interest can be made as the FDR’s are pledged with the Government Department against security towards Tender and as such form parts of total business receipts. BECAUSE, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held ‘appellant’ 5. eligible for statutory claim of Depreciation and deductions under section

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

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

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

4 had raised ground challenging rejection of accounts and framing of assessment under section 144 of the Act. However, during the course of 6 I.T.A No. 306/Agra/2017 I.T.A No. 296/Agra/2017 hearing before us it was specifically stated to be not pressed. Thus, in principle assessee has accepted to the rejection of the books of account. Therefore, in absence

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

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

4 had raised ground challenging rejection of accounts and framing of assessment under section 144 of the Act. However, during the course of 6 I.T.A No. 306/Agra/2017 I.T.A No. 296/Agra/2017 hearing before us it was specifically stated to be not pressed. Thus, in principle assessee has accepted to the rejection of the books of account. Therefore, in absence

JAWAHAR LAL AGARWAL,AGRA vs. I.T.O., WARD-4(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)” 10. Now, as per section 147 of the Act, the AO may assess or reassess any income escaping assessment, if he has reasons to believe such escapement

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

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

4) Mathura.” 6. So, as per the notice, the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income, or had furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. 7. In the assessment order (APB-149-150), dated 11.08.2010, the notice is stated to be issued qua concealed income. In the penalty order dated 25.02.2011, the expression used for levy of penalty is ‘Chhipaye Gaye Tatthayon