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

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

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

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 68 of the Act. The laerned Assessing officer has made the addition on account of his finding that

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

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

Section 10(23C) on the requirement that a college must maintain the status- quo, as it were, in regard to its knowledge based infrastructure. Nor for that matter is an educational institution prohibited from upgrading its infrastructure on educational facilities save on the pain of losing the benefit of the exemption under Section 10(23C). Imposing such a condition which

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

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

iii). 5. During the year there was substantial increase in labor charges and the payment made to sub contractors. Details of the same were filed before Ld. Assessing Officer. (Kindly refer Page 30 to 39 of the Paper book). 6. Moreover the reason for decline in N.P rate was also submitted before Ld. CIT(A). (Kindly refer Page 7 Para

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.

iii) Parin Furniture Ltd. Vs. PCIT, ITA Ns.86 to 89/Rjt/2022 Dt: 20.07.2022 iv) Kathivaran Ananthalakshmi Vs. PCIT, ITA No.30/Chny/2022 Dt:3.8.2022 v) Rabi Pal Vs. ITO, ITA No.193/Kol/2022 Dt: 05.09.2022 vi) R.M.Tradelink Vs. PCIT, ITA No.68/Rjt/2022 Dt: 16-09-2022 I.T.A.Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021/A.Ys.2014-15 & 2015-16 11. The Ld. Counsel submits that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case

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.

iii) Parin Furniture Ltd. Vs. PCIT, ITA Ns.86 to 89/Rjt/2022 Dt: 20.07.2022 iv) Kathivaran Ananthalakshmi Vs. PCIT, ITA No.30/Chny/2022 Dt:3.8.2022 v) Rabi Pal Vs. ITO, ITA No.193/Kol/2022 Dt: 05.09.2022 vi) R.M.Tradelink Vs. PCIT, ITA No.68/Rjt/2022 Dt: 16-09-2022 I.T.A.Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021/A.Ys.2014-15 & 2015-16 11. The Ld. Counsel submits that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case

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

depreciation disallowance on fixed assets. The perusal of the impugned assessment order would reveal that the ld. Assessing Officer while considering the net profit rate of the assessee has given a comparative analysis of the turnover and profits of the appellant for the three assessment years as under: A.Y. Sales (Rs.) GP (Rs) G.P. Rate NP(Rs.) N.P. Rate

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

III of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962, higher rate of depreciation is admissible on motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxis used in business of running them on hire. A question has been raised as to whether, for deriving the benefit of higher depreciation, motor lorries must be hired out to some other person or whether

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

depreciation as provided in the books. The view has been upheld by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Navnit Lal C. Jhaveri vs. CIT reported at (1971) 80 ITR 582. The accumulated profits as on 16.09.2008 were Rs.21,24,721/-. Therefore, even if the advances received from the sister concern are treated as deemed dividend

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

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 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 2. The ld. Counsel states as at the bar that ground no. 3 is not pressed. Rejected as not pressed. 3. Regarding ground nos. 1 and 2, the facts are that the AO rejected the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 10(23C) of the Act, at the time of filing of return

OMKAR MEMORIAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,GWALIOR vs. CIT[EXEMPTION], BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Omkar Memorial Vs. Cit(E), Charitable Society, Bhopal Room No. 201, Ii Floor, Reac, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaa08054B Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2025

iii) of the Act. 4. It is not in dispute that assessee had filed its return of income together with audit report in Form 10B and audited balance sheet. The assessee for the year ended on 31.03.2022 had stated that a sum of Rs. 66,51,422/- has been applied for charitable purposes during that year and had also

M/S GINNI FILAMENTS LTD.,MATHURA vs. A.C.I.T., RANGE-3, MATHURA

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

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

iii). DCIT v. Subhash Chand Agrawal (2013) 58 SOT 122 (Alld. Tribunal) 7. It was further submitted by the ld. AR that for the assessment year 2012-13, the ld. CIT(A) in the identical facts, despite decline in GP, had accepted the GP rate of 8.41%. He has drawn our attention to the table reproduced in paragraph

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

1), Firozabad-205135 Firozabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCR9715L Assessee by : Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 03.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 03.02.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16, arises against the CIT(A)-2, Agra’s order dated 13.09.2018, in proceedings