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

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

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]

97,532/- iii. Hoarding & Kon. Expenditure 12,42,702/- iv. Gaushala expenses 5,89,824/- v. Other Marketing expenses 2,00,365/- vi. Electricity, Power & Fuel 27,51,990/- vii. Depreciation 13,23,232/- viii. Finance charges (interest etc.) 4,08,98,375/- ix. Salary (Construction) 33,48,498/- Total 5,17,61,420/- Above mentioned expenses

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

97 taxmann.com 525 that- 14 I.T.A No.313/Agra/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 “10. With the assistance of both sides, we have perused this Judgment and we find that it dealt with an identical issue. This Court held that Section 43B does not contemplate liability to pay service tax before actual receipt of the funds in the account of the assessee. Hence

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

97 ITR 228 (Ker). I.T.A No. 70/Agra/2017 9 (xvii) “Uttam Value Steels Ltd. vs. ACIT”, ITA No.3622 to 3625/Mum/2016. (xviii) “Muninaga Reddy Vs. ACIT”, 396 ITR 398 (Karn). (xix) “Orbit Enterprises Vs. ITO”, ITA Nos. 1596 & 1597/Mum/2014, Order dated 01.09.2017. 9. Per contra, the ld. DR has relied on: “CIT vs. S.V. Angidi Chettiar”, 44 ITR 739 (SC). (a) “Sanjay

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

97 ITR 228 (Ker). (xvii) “Uttam Value Steels Ltd. vs. ACIT”, ITA No.3622 to 3625/Mum/2016. (xviii) “Muninaga Reddy Vs. ACIT”, 396 ITR 398 (Karn). (xix) “Orbit Enterprises Vs. ITO”, ITA Nos. 1596 & 1597/Mum/2014, Order dated 01.09.2017. 9. Per contra, the ld. DR has relied on: “CIT vs. S.V. Angidi Chettiar”, 44 ITR 739 (SC). (a) “Sanjay Kumar & Ajay Kumar

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

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

section 145(3)— Assessee did not produce complete bills and vouchers of expenses claimed, therefore, it was reasonable and appropriate for CIT(A) to hold that prof it rate of 6 percent was fair and reasonable for purpose of computing business income of assessee—AO had applied exorbitant and unreasonable profit rate of12.5 percent without considering history of assessee