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

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

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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Depreciation and deductions under section 40(b) of the Act even after application of profit rate. BECAUSE, the ‘appellant’ denies liability of interest 6. under section 234B of the ‘Act’. 7. BECAUSE, while making and sustaining the assessment the ‘AO’ and ‘CIT(A)’ has made various observations which are contrary to facts on records. ITA 314/Agr/2015 3 8. BECAUSE, assessment

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

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

44,73,649/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A for the alleged failure to record the amount in books of account. The supporting evidence has arbitrarily been rejected by the authorities below. Further, section 69A has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant. The addition made u/s 69A is wholly illegal which

M/S SHIVHARE ROADLINES,GWALIOR vs. JT. C.I.T., RANGE-2, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

44,871/- of revenue expenditure under head office repair and maintenance considering it as capital expenditure.” In the 1st ground of appeal the assessee challenged the disallowance 4. of Rs. 46,80,814/- on account of alleged excess depreciation claimed at the rate of 30% instead of allowable depreciation of 15% on Trucks and Trailers. 4.1 It is seen that

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

44 DTR 0013 (All) (APB-57 -62) b) CIT vs. Target Construction Co. Ltd.(2015) 55 taxmann.com 294 (All)(APB-63-65) c) Pragati Engineering Corporation vs. ITO (Order dated 5.04.2013 passed by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in ITA No. 11/2012)(APB 66-70). 6. He submitted that similar view has been followed by this Bench of the Tribunal

M/S MISS HILL EDUCATION SOCIETY,GWALIOR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section, which may be approved by the prescribed authority. The AO observed that in the absence of approval by the prescribed authority, the assessee could not enjoy exemption u/s 10 (23C) of the Act. The assessee’s income was assessed at Rs.40,18,770/-. Vide application filed u/s 154 of the Act, the assessee claimed depreciation. The AO allowed depreciation

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), GWALIOR vs. SWASTIK ROADLINES P LTD, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is treated as partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

depreciation." 6. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is perverse to the facts." 7. "Any other ground that may be adduced at the time of hearing." 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a Private Limited Company, registered under the provisions of The Companies

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

44 ITR 739 (SC). (a) “Sanjay Kumar & Ajay Kumar vs. ITO, Agra”, ITA Nos.53 & (b) 54/Agra/2015, dated 19.05.2017. “Mak Data (P) Ltd. vs. CIT”, Civil Appeal No.9772/2013 (SC). (c) “Gujarat State Financial Services Ltd. vs. ACIT”, in ITA (d) Nos.2078/Ahd/2006 & 2526/Ahd/206. “M/s K.P. Madhusudananan vs. CIT”, Civil Appeal No. (e) 6465/2000 (SC). “CIT Ltd.”, (f) vs. Zoom Communications

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

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

section 144 i.e. ‘Best Judgment Assessment.’ 3. The assessment of income as per discussion above is framed below: “a. The value of phyiscial stock taken on date of survey was Rs.1,30,14,587/-. The partner of the firms, Sh. Mukesh Agarwal in his statement on the date of survey was confronted with this stock inventory which was taken

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

44 ITR 739 (SC). (a) “Sanjay Kumar & Ajay Kumar vs. ITO, Agra”, ITA Nos.53 & (b) 54/Agra/2015, dated 19.05.2017. “Mak Data (P) Ltd. vs. CIT”, Civil Appeal No.9772/2013 (SC). (c) “Gujarat State Financial Services Ltd. vs. ACIT”, in ITA (d) Nos.2078/Ahd/2006 & 2526/Ahd/206. “M/s K.P. Madhusudananan vs. CIT”, Civil Appeal No. (e) 6465/2000 (SC). “CIT Ltd.”, (f) vs. Zoom Communications

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.

section 68 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the entire order of 14 pages of the Ld. PCIT contains the submissions/objections of the assessee running into 11 pages and the conclusion of the Ld. PCIT is in one small para on last page. The Ld. Counsel submits that the Ld. PCIT in her entire order

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.

section 68 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the entire order of 14 pages of the Ld. PCIT contains the submissions/objections of the assessee running into 11 pages and the conclusion of the Ld. PCIT is in one small para on last page. The Ld. Counsel submits that the Ld. PCIT in her entire order

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

section 145(3), he rejected the book version of the assessee on the premise that the assessee did not keep adequate vouchers for expenses incurred in cash and that the self made vouchers were not open for verification and non-maintenance of stock register. The Assessing Officer applied the net profit rate of 8% on the contract receipts

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

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

44 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3 I.T.A No. 306/Agra/2017 I.T.A No. 296/Agra/2017 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law' and on facts in deleting addition to the tune of Rs. 1,10,89,0558/- by restricting net profit rate to 8% of Gross Receipts in place of net profit rate of 12% estimated by the A.O. without

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

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

44 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3 I.T.A No. 306/Agra/2017 I.T.A No. 296/Agra/2017 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law' and on facts in deleting addition to the tune of Rs. 1,10,89,0558/- by restricting net profit rate to 8% of Gross Receipts in place of net profit rate of 12% estimated by the A.O. without