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

business upto A.Y.2008-09, even in the scrutiny assessments the audited books of accounts regularly maintained by the assessee have been always accepted and slight variation have been made in the declared income; that for the very first time, in the scrutiny assessment for A.Y.2009-10 the rate of 8% net profit was applied because of the facts narrated at para

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

business upto A.Y.2008-09, even in the scrutiny assessments the audited books of accounts regularly maintained by the assessee have been always accepted and slight variation have been made in the declared income; that for the very first time, in the scrutiny assessment for A.Y.2009-10 the rate of 8% net profit was applied because of the facts narrated at para

SATISH PRAKASH AGARWAL,AGRA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17

disallowance of the loss of Rs.10,06,625/-, as there will be positive income under the head income from 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)

income and expenditure' account. The authorities below have erroneously disallowed the benefit of exemption u/s 11 claimed by the appellant. The authorities below further failed to appreciate that various receipts forming the above excess included interest from bank amounting to Rs 3,51,83,751/- which is not at all the receipt from the alleged commercial activities. The authorities below

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)

income and expenditure' account. The authorities below have erroneously disallowed the benefit of exemption u/s 11 claimed by the appellant. The authorities below further failed to appreciate that various receipts forming the above excess included interest from bank amounting to Rs 3,51,83,751/- which is not at all the receipt from the alleged commercial activities. The authorities below

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)

income and expenditure' account. The authorities below have erroneously disallowed the benefit of exemption u/s 11 claimed by the appellant. The authorities below further failed to appreciate that various receipts forming the above excess included interest from bank amounting to Rs 3,51,83,751/- which is not at all the receipt from the alleged commercial activities. The authorities below

BHARTI BANSAL,AGRA vs. DCIT-1, AGRA

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11

business requirement to invest funds with JSPL, on which interest income is earned. Accordingly, this matter is remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer to decide the same afresh after arriving at the findings as aforesaid. The AO shall also keep in view our decision in this order in sustaining only the disallowance

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

income from business. The Assessing Officer has legally erred in ignoring the direction of the Hon'ble ITAT which has been wrongly and illegally confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). 3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly, illegally and arbitrarily confirmed the disallowance

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

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

disallowed / added such expenditure / receipts in the assessee's income and Expenditure Account. Since the exemption to the assessee (appellant) u/s 11 has been denied by the AO in view of proviso to section 2(15) read with section 13(8), therefore the assessee's income has been assessed under the head income from Business

M/S AGRA CINEMA EXHIBITORS P LTD,AGRA vs. ITO 4(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

business activity during the previous year 2011-12 relevant to the A.Y. 2012-13 and none of these expenses have been incurred to earn the FDR interest shown by the assessee. In view of this, I.T.A No. 43/Agra/2017 2 the expenses of Rs. 9463/- debited in the Profit & Loss account is disallowed and added to the income

SURESH CHAND GUPTA,JHANSI vs. DCIT-6, JHANSI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

business purposes and hence deduction of interest allowed under section 36(1)(iii) is excessive relief granted in assessment. In this context Explanation 2 to section 147 has to be referred to which exhaustively states certain cases where income chargeable to lax has escaped assessment under sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of Explanation 2, if income has been made

SINGH INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MORENA vs. WARD 1, MORENA

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

income at Rs.152.63 Lacs after various additions / disallowances under the head ‘business income' and 'income from other sources'. Similar assessment

SINGH INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MORENA vs. JCIT RANGE, GWALIOR

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.15/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.14/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Singh Industries Pvt. Ltd. Jcit, Range-2 बनाम/ Plot No. Q-2, Ab Road Industrial Area City Center, Gwalior Vs. Morena – 476 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aakcs-5297-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-02-2025

income at Rs.152.63 Lacs after various additions / disallowances under the head ‘business income’ and ‘income from other sources’. Similar assessment

SHRI PUNEET BANGLA,AGRA vs. ITO 1(3), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

disallowed by the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A). 8. Heard. A reading of the order under appeal, at first blush, does not evince this factual position, as contended by the assessee, to have been so shown before the Authorities below. However, we have been taken through the copies of the documents certified to have been furnished before

MR. TASAVVER HUSAIN,FARRUKHABAD vs. ACIT, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

business amounting to Rs.1,88,184/-. The order passed by the AO levying penalty u/s.270A of the Act read alongwith assessment order passed in the case of the assessee reveals that the AO, noting that the assessee had filed return of income declaring income from the Mother Dairy milk booth activity belatedly beyond the time prescribed in law, held

MR. TASAVVER HUSAIN,FARRUKHABAD vs. ACIT , FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

business amounting to Rs.1,88,184/-. The order passed by the AO levying penalty u/s.270A of the Act read alongwith assessment order passed in the case of the assessee reveals that the AO, noting that the assessee had filed return of income declaring income from the Mother Dairy milk booth activity belatedly beyond the time prescribed in law, held

SURJEET SINGH,AGRA vs. ACIT 1(1)(1) AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Surjeet Singh, Vs. Acit, 158, Pratap Pura, Agra Circle-1(1)(1), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahwps1539D Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

disallowances of interest paid on loans in the sum of Rs. 102,04,576/- under the head income from other sources in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee is an individual derived income from Surjeet Singh various forms in the form

MANISH MAHESHWARI,GWALIOR vs. JCIT RANGE-2, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him Though Specific Request Was Made To Admit The Same. Ground No. 2 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed Theaddition Of Rs. 67,530/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 40A(3) Of The Income Tax Act. (Ii) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Legally Erred In Rejecting The Appellant'Sspecificsubmissionand The Unavoidable Circumstances Under Which The Payment Wasmade. Ground No. 3 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed An Addition Of Rs. 1,11,038/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Disallowing The Claim Of Interest Paid Holding The Same To Be Not Allowable U/S 57(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act.”

business. Therefore, it is clear that the loan was not taken by the assessee from M/s Manish Agency and Shri Arvind Kumar Chowdhury for the purpose of earning the interest income under the head 'income from other sources' and therefore, the interest paid on these loans is not allowable as deduction u/s 57(iii) of the Act. In other words

SHARDA OIL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. JURISDICTIONAL OFFICER,CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA

In the result all the appeals filed by the

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sharda Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Circle-2(1)(1), 17, Tundla Road, Nunhai Agrau.P. Agrau.P. Pan: Aaecs1396L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Prem Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Dcit/Acit, Circle-1(1) Kanwal Complex, B-32, A.G. Office Gwalior M.P. Road, Gwalior M.P. 474001 Pan: Aabcp2035Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Karam Udyog Vs. Jo Circle - 1(1)(1) 9, Gailana Road Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Abbfk0897L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Income Tax Act, 1961 Business disallowance - Certain deductions to be allowed on actual payment (employee's contribution) - whether where an employer

KARAM UDHOG,AGRA vs. J.A.O., DY. CIT.., CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result all the appeals filed by the

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sharda Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Circle-2(1)(1), 17, Tundla Road, Nunhai Agrau.P. Agrau.P. Pan: Aaecs1396L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Prem Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Dcit/Acit, Circle-1(1) Kanwal Complex, B-32, A.G. Office Gwalior M.P. Road, Gwalior M.P. 474001 Pan: Aabcp2035Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Karam Udyog Vs. Jo Circle - 1(1)(1) 9, Gailana Road Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Abbfk0897L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Income Tax Act, 1961 Business disallowance - Certain deductions to be allowed on actual payment (employee's contribution) - whether where an employer