DIXIT RICE MILL ,AURAIYA vs. DCIT, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

disallowed under section 36. 6. It is seen that in the various grounds taken by the assessee he is trying to argue case by filing evidences as is done during scrutiny assessments and not u/s143(1) under centralized computerized processing. In view of the procedures that exist for computerized processing, assessee is advised to first file a rectification application online

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 40468036 58318453 251282607 exemption U/s 10(38) GOA No.2 GOA No.2 [GOA No.2 [On protective basis) &3 &3 & 3] 3. Dividend income U/s 480000 682500 10(34) [On protective basis 4. Unsecured loans [On 5000000 protective basis] Total Rs. 10000000 40948036 5,9000953 256282607 5. The assessee, AOP alleges that it is a dummy entity of K.S. Oils

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 40468036 58318453 251282607 exemption U/s 10(38) GOA No.2 GOA No.2 [GOA No.2 [On protective basis) &3 &3 & 3] 3. Dividend income U/s 480000 682500 10(34) [On protective basis 4. Unsecured loans [On 5000000 protective basis] Total Rs. 10000000 40948036 5,9000953 256282607 5. The assessee, AOP alleges that it is a dummy entity of K.S. Oils

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 40468036 58318453 251282607 exemption U/s 10(38) GOA No.2 GOA No.2 [GOA No.2 [On protective basis) &3 &3 & 3] 3. Dividend income U/s 480000 682500 10(34) [On protective basis 4. Unsecured loans [On 5000000 protective basis] Total Rs. 10000000 40948036 5,9000953 256282607 5. The assessee, AOP alleges that it is a dummy entity of K.S. Oils

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 40468036 58318453 251282607 exemption U/s 10(38) GOA No.2 GOA No.2 [GOA No.2 [On protective basis) &3 &3 & 3] 3. Dividend income U/s 480000 682500 10(34) [On protective basis 4. Unsecured loans [On 5000000 protective basis] Total Rs. 10000000 40948036 5,9000953 256282607 5. The assessee, AOP alleges that it is a dummy entity of K.S. Oils

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 40468036 58318453 251282607 exemption U/s 10(38) GOA No.2 GOA No.2 [GOA No.2 [On protective basis) &3 &3 & 3] 3. Dividend income U/s 480000 682500 10(34) [On protective basis 4. Unsecured loans [On 5000000 protective basis] Total Rs. 10000000 40948036 5,9000953 256282607 5. The assessee, AOP alleges that it is a dummy entity of K.S. Oils

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

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

3) of the Act. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd., v/s. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that AO cannot make any addition on the account of his guess work without having any material evidence on record. 10 | P a g e CIT vs. J.J. Enterprises (2002) 122 Taxman 124 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

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

124 of the IT Act 1961. 4. Because the Ld CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding that the provisions of Sec 145(3) of IT Act 1961 are applicable to the appellant. 5. Because the Ld CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the recaseted net loss of Rs 4,70, 12,656. 6. Because the Ld CIT(Appeals) has erred

K P ENTERPRISES,ETAWAH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , FIROZABAD

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

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c) the Act. In the penalty order, the AO observed that the assessee firm was in the business of civil contracts and working for Government department during the period relevant to the AY 2014-15 and it filed its return of income on 26.11.2014 for the year under consideration declaring total income at Rs.41,98,630/-. Subsequently