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

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

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

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

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

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

7,70,449/- out of Rs.9,39,396/- being the revenue expenditure disallowed by the assessing officer. The authorities below have arbitrarily rejected the supporting evidence. The finding of Ld. CIT(A) in holding the expenses as of capital nature and allowing depreciation thereon is wholly illegal. The addition is wholly illegal which may kindly be directed to be deleted

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

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)

depreciable assets. As the book profit was more than normal income, the tax was calculated under the LT.A No. 54/AGR/2021 19 provisions of section 115JB on the book profit of Rs.35,05,03,102/-which inter alia included profit on sale of fixed assets. Since the entire income accrued on 07.03.2018, therefore, there was no liability to pay advance

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

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 Ke Liye’, which expression, and the parties are also ad idem on this, means ‘concealment’. 8. According to the ld. Counsel

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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

7 hold him – sic her – liable for penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act accordingly’. In the impugned order, the levy of penalty has been confirmed by holding (impugned order, page 18) as follows: “On the basis of all the above case laws, which include the decision of the jurisdictional High Court also, I hold that in a case

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

depreciation at 30% is allowed to the appellant and accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed. 7. With regard to the next ground of appeal, it is seen that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the Ld. A.O. has disallowed Rs.37,19,883/- u/s 43B of the Act as service tax liability unpaid before the due date of filling

HARSH SALUJA,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

depreciation for Rs.25,967/- on computer and motor cycle, net profit comes to Rs.2,92,049/- which is 10.58% of the total turnover and other income shown from commission I.T.A No. 165/Agra/2016 4 etc is Rs.l,72,509/- and thus total taxable income after deduction under chapter VI A comes to Rs.3,57,770/-. 3. As per AIR information

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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

7. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the impugned order. 8. Section 10 (23C)(vi) of the Act, under which, the assessee claimed exemption, provides that non inclusion of income in computing the total income of a previous year of any person, where such income is received by the person on behalf of, inter

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

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

section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 2010-11 where income was estimated by application of N.P rate of 5.25%. 7 I.T.A No. 331/Agra/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) However, the past history of the assessee on the basis of Returns filed ranges from 1.88% to 2.04% except in A.Y 2010-11 where assessee agreed for being assessed

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]

depreciation expenses, have been added back by the appellant while computing its income chargeable to tax and claimed under the provisions of section 32. Thus, under the facts and circumstances of this case, no addition in respect of these expenses totaling Rs. 2, 10,05,436/- can be legally made. • The remaining disallowed expenses total

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