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)

disallowance of employee's contribution is duly considered. However, the same cannot be accepted in view of the amendments made to section 36 and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021. The Finance Act, 2021 has amended section 36, which reads as under- "In section 36 of the Income-tax Act, in sub-section (I), in clause (va), the Explanation shall

PREM MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,GWALIOR vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER ,DCIT/ACIT,CIRCLE1(1), GWALIOR

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)

disallowance of employee's contribution is duly considered. However, the same cannot be accepted in view of the amendments made to section 36 and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021. The Finance Act, 2021 has amended section 36, which reads as under- "In section 36 of the Income-tax Act, in sub-section (I), in clause (va), the Explanation shall

HYDRISE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

119 of the Act and reproduced Para 9 of Chapter 3 of Volume-II(Technical) of the Manual, which reads as under:- “9. Approval for assessment – An assessment order under Chapter XIV-B can be passed only with the previous approval of the range JCIT/Addl.CIT (for the period from 30-6-1995 to 31-12-1996 the approving authority

HYDRISE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

119 of the Act and reproduced Para 9 of Chapter 3 of Volume-II(Technical) of the Manual, which reads as under:- “9. Approval for assessment – An assessment order under Chapter XIV-B can be passed only with the previous approval of the range JCIT/Addl.CIT (for the period from 30-6-1995 to 31-12-1996 the approving authority

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act for the year under consideration for some items. Pursuant to the assessment framed, the assessee company did not contest the same by preferring first appeal before the Learned Commissioner (appeals). The assessee paid the due taxes in respect of demand raised by the learned AO. The assessee

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1) , GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act for the year under consideration for some items. Pursuant to the assessment framed, the assessee company did not contest the same by preferring first appeal before the Learned Commissioner (appeals). The assessee paid the due taxes in respect of demand raised by the learned AO. The assessee

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act for the year under consideration for some items. Pursuant to the assessment framed, the assessee company did not contest the same by preferring first appeal before the Learned Commissioner (appeals). The assessee paid the due taxes in respect of demand raised by the learned AO. The assessee

SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

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

disallowing expenditure u/s. 11 & 12 ofthe Act is upheld particularly because of the fact that as per section 119(2)(b) of theAct

SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

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

disallowing expenditure u/s. 11 & 12 ofthe Act is upheld particularly because of the fact that as per section 119(2)(b) of theAct

SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, , GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

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

disallowing expenditure u/s. 11 & 12 ofthe Act is upheld particularly because of the fact that as per section 119(2)(b) of theAct

SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

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

disallowing expenditure u/s. 11 & 12 ofthe Act is upheld particularly because of the fact that as per section 119(2)(b) of theAct

SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

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

disallowing expenditure u/s. 11 & 12 ofthe Act is upheld particularly because of the fact that as per section 119(2)(b) of theAct

LAXMI FOUNDATION,FIROZABAD vs. ITO EXEMPTION AGRA (CPC) , AGRA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2018-19

disallowed the assessee’s claim of section 11 exemption; in the course of section 143(1) processing dated 20.03.2020 as upheld in the impugned lower appellate discussion reading as follows : “5. Decision: After carefully going through the facts of the case, intimation order under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the material on record, the grounds

GRAMEEN EVAM SHAHRI WALFARE SANSTHAN ,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 4(1)(3), ALIGARH

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowance of exemption u/s 11 of the Act due to delay in filing of ITR and non-filing of 10B. 5) That CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 31.07 2024 in limine without appreciate the fact on merit that there is no mistake on the part of assessee in filing ITR and 10B as both was filed

GRAMEEN EVAM SHAHRI WELFARE SANSTHAN,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD,4(1)(3) ALIGARH, ALIGARH

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowance of exemption u/s 11 of the Act due to delay in filing of ITR and non-filing of 10B. 5) That CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 31.07 2024 in limine without appreciate the fact on merit that there is no mistake on the part of assessee in filing ITR and 10B as both was filed

GRAMEEN EVAM SHAHRI WELFARE SANSTHAN,ALIGARH vs. ITO, WARD, 4(1)(3), ALIGARH

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowance of exemption u/s 11 of the Act due to delay in filing of ITR and non-filing of 10B. 5) That CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 31.07 2024 in limine without appreciate the fact on merit that there is no mistake on the part of assessee in filing ITR and 10B as both was filed

RANJANA CHATURVEDI,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalito-1(3)(1), Ranjna Chaturvedi Ayakar Bhawan, 9A, T Point, Behind Back Vs. Radhika Vihar, Gate Skjs, Govind Nagar, Phase-Ii, Mathura-281001 (U.P.) Mathura-281004 (U.P.) Pan-Afopc4950N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M.M. Agarwal, Ca Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

section 69A of the Act.” 4. Ground of appeal No.2 is with respect to the disallowance of Rs.1,12,596/- made out of interest expenses claimed by the assessee. 5. The AO observed that the assessee has withdrawn Rs.10,00,000/- for construction of house which was for personal purpose and had paid interest on bank borrowing of Rs.4

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

119 (Delhi), held that the initial onus is upon the assessee to establish three things necessary to obviate the mischief of Section 68. Those are: (i)identity of the investors; (ii) their creditworthiness; and (iii) genuineness of the transaction. The department's exercise starts only when these three ingredients are established prima facie, by the assessee

VERMA SERVICE STATION,FIROZABAD vs. ACIT, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowed interest of Rs.2,85,984/- and Rs.1,83,248/- for which, it was stated that the authorized representative of the assessee conceded. I.T.A No. 212/Agra/2018 3 3. In the first round of appeal, ITAT, Agra Bench, Agra Vide ITA No. 189/Agra/2011 dated 12.08.2015 has restored the matter back to AO holding that since the additions are based