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)

disallowance of the exemption claimed under section 11 and 13 of the Act as the activities of the assessee was in the nature of trade, commerce or business in nature. In response to that the assessee filed the reply of 7th August 2013 and in the reply it was mentioned as under. “ Before replying to specific queries, the assessee

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2,, AGRA vs. M/S SAKSHI TAIRI & CHHAYA BATTAD, MORENA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act on protective basis. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deletion of amount on account of dividend income on protective basis.” 4. The above grounds are common in all the appeals, however, the deletion made by the ld. CIT(A) is different

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S RAKESH SHIVHARE & NISHA MITTAL, MORENA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act on protective basis. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deletion of amount on account of dividend income on protective basis.” 4. The above grounds are common in all the appeals, however, the deletion made by the ld. CIT(A) is different

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S SUNIL KUMAR MITTAL & MAMTA MITTAL, MORENA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act on protective basis. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deletion of amount on account of dividend income on protective basis.” 4. The above grounds are common in all the appeals, however, the deletion made by the ld. CIT(A) is different

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S SHYAM SUNDER & MANISH TAORI, MORENA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act on protective basis. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deletion of amount on account of dividend income on protective basis.” 4. The above grounds are common in all the appeals, however, the deletion made by the ld. CIT(A) is different

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S VANDANA JAIN & RAMA BANSAL, MORENA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act on protective basis. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deletion of amount on account of dividend income on protective basis.” 4. The above grounds are common in all the appeals, however, the deletion made by the ld. CIT(A) is different

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

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

6) Because the CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs 2,09,78,877/- in respect of old outstanding entries in the bank reconciliation statement. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to ITA No.216/Agr/2016, 183/Agr/2014,439/Agr/2015 & ITA No. 177/Agr/2014 14 appreciate that the amount are bank to bank transfer, relates to earlier years

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, MORENA vs. SHRI AGRASEN LOGISTICS, JOTAI ROAD, PORSA,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

vii). Judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajshree Synthetics (P) Itd. Vs. CIT reported in (2003) 131 Taxman 391 (Raj) vide order dated 08.11.2001, Copy placed at pages 33 to 41 of judgement set. Thus the CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the Ld. AO.” 10. We have heard the rival submissions

MS/ BHOLE BABA MILK FOOD INDUSTRIES,AGRA vs. THE A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

6 “CIT vs. SSA Emerrald Meadows”, in ITA No. (iii) 380/2015 (Kar). “Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT”, 291 ITR 519 (SC). (iv) “Ashok Pai vs. CIT”, 292 ITR 11 (SC). (v) (vi) “CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd.”, 322 ITR 158 (SC). (vii) “Uma Shankar Agarwal vs. DCIT”, ITA No. 1831 to 1835/Kol/2015. (viii) “SuvaprasananBhatacharya vs. ACIT”, ITA No. 1303/Kol/2010

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

disallowance of 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

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

disallowance of 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

TAHIR KHAN,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

6. BECAUSE, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the major addition of Rs.97,31,000/- made under section 56(2)(vii) of the 'Act' being on account of deeming fiction cannot be a valid foundation for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the 'Act, as such addition is purely notional and involves no element

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

6. So, as per the notice, the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income, or had furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. 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

ZILA SAHKARI BANK LTD,JHANSI vs. DCIT -2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

6 & ITA No.193/Agra/2017 “CIT vs. SSA Emerrald Meadows”, in ITA No. (iii) 380/2015 (Kar). “Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT”, 291 ITR 519 (SC). (iv) “Ashok Pai vs. CIT”, 292 ITR 11 (SC). (v) (vi) “CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd.”, 322 ITR 158 (SC). (vii) “Uma Shankar Agarwal vs. DCIT”, ITA No. 1831 to 1835/Kol/2015. (viii) “Suvaprasanan Bhatacharya vs. ACIT

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

6 The date is fixed for compliance in my office at Qadri Manzil, Marris Road, Aligarh on 11.04.2011 at 12.30 P.M.” 11. The notice dated 30.05.2011 (APB-9) states: “Whereas in the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act 1961 for the A.Y. 2007-08, it has been found that you have concealed the particulars

SMT. GARIMA MEHTA,GWALIOR vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(2), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

disallowed the assessee’s claim u/s 10A on the basis that the 21. assessee did not fulfill the conditions contained in section 10A. It was observed that the business premises of the assessee was not situated either in a Software Technology Park, or in a Special Category Zone, as required by the provisions of section 10A(1) (A); that

MAHIM PATRAN P. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT -2, AGRA

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

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

6) Rule37BA prior to substitution of clause (2) w.e.f. 1.11.2011 provided as under: - "(1) Credit for tax deducted at source and paid to the Central Government in accordance •with the provisions of Chapter XV 11, shall be given to the person to whom payment has been made or credit has been given (hereinafter referred to as deductee) on the basis

DCIT EXMP.CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. BIRLA JAN SEWA TRUST, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance because he was of the opinion that excessive payment has been made by the appellant to these persons. (ii) Payment to Dr. RavishankarDalmia- Dr. Dalmia is DM Cardiology and HOD of DMBIMR Heart Center. The gross receipts of this heart center in the financial year 2010-11 was Rs.2,39,60,000/- and the appellant has paid as salary