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

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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

5. eligible for statutory claim of Depreciation and deductions under section 40(b) of the Act even after application of profit

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)

section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Hon'ble Apex Court is of the view that the law of limitation is founded on public policy. The idea behind the law of limitation is not destroy the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The objection

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

5 proceedings under this section, or re-compute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case

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)

5,91,506/-. The ld AO proceeded to disallow the same as violative of provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act and disallowed the same in the assessment. Before the ld CITA, the Assessee furnished the ITA Nos. 273 & 274/AGR/2024 Alnoor Exports complete details together with the nature of payments and the number of persons to whom the respective

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

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

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

depreciation thereon is wholly illegal. The addition is wholly illegal which may kindly be directed to be deleted. 28. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 5,91,907/- out of Rs 17,57,752/- made by the assessing officer under the head "expenditure overstated". The supporting evidence

RAVI KUMAR AGARWAL, HUF,AGRA vs. I.T.O.-2(4), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

depreciation. 5. Because without prejudice to the grounds as taken above the statutory deduction should have been allowed from the income from parking space.” 2. Vide order dated 28.12.2010, the Assessing Officer assessed the rent of portion of cinema building as income from house property and rent received for parking area as income from other sources. The Assessing Officer also

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

depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against the above said assessment order dated 31.03.2016, learned CIT(A) vide order dated 25.06.2025 affirmed the rejection of accounts and sustained the addition made by AO on account of low profit rate. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal in ITA No.342/Agr/2025 before the ITAT, which has been partly allowed by this

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

depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against the above said assessment order dated 31.03.2016, learned CIT(A) vide order dated 25.06.2025 affirmed the rejection of accounts and sustained the addition made by AO on account of low profit rate. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal in ITA No.342/Agr/2025 before the ITAT, which has been partly allowed by this

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

5 u/s 247 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 21.12.2009 (APB-7), 25.03.2011 (APB- 8) and 30.05.2011 (APB-9), are not in conformity with the law. 8. As per the ld. DR, however, the notices are entirely in accordance with law. 9. The notice dated 21.12.2009 (APB-7) reads as follows: “When translated in English; In the hearing

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. Both the learned representative reiterate their respective stand against and in support of correctness of the impugned revision directions

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]

5,17,61,420/- disallowed by the A.O., as much as Rs.1,96,82,204/- have already been capitalized by the appellant in its books of account, and another Rs. 13,23,232/-, being depreciation expenses, have been added back by the appellant while computing its income chargeable to tax and claimed under the provisions of section

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

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

5 percent of gross turnover—Tribunal not justified in restoring assessment at 8 percent without any discussion on CIT (A) order— Order of CIT (A) restored" 16. Hon'ble ITAT, Agra Bench in the case of ACIT Vs Jagdish Prashad Bansal reported as (2012) 34 CCH 0446 (Agra) held that: "CIT(A) considering history of assessee and comparable cases

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

5. The aforesaid notice (APB page 7) reads as follows: “Sub: Penalty notice u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 - A.Y. 2008 -09 – Reg:- Whereas in the course of the proceedings before me for the assessment year 2008-09 it appears to me that you;- ** have concealed the particulars of your income or have

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

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

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

5. Briefly, the facts as per record, are being taken from ITA No. 438/Agra/2015, for the sake of convenience. The assessee is a retail trader of paints and hardware goods and deriving income by running retail sale of paints. A survey u/s 133A was conducted in the premises of the assessee on 18.09.2009. The Assessing Officer (In short