SMT. BINA WADHWA,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2010-11

1. Because the Ld. Assessing Officer has taken approval of Ld CIT-1, Agra for issue of notice under section 133(6), evident from the Assessing Order, and no approval has been taken for issue of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, hence reopening of case without valid approval of Joint Commissioner

ANURAG MITTAL ,FIROZABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

disallowance is called for in the case of the ‘appellant’ as the Commission was duly paid in respect of services utilized by the ‘appellant’. 3 BECAUSE, interest under section 234A & 234B is either not chargeable or has excessively been charged. ITA No. 135 & 136/Agr/2018 3 Asst. Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 BECAUSE, while confirming the addition Ld ‘CIT(A)’ made

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

1), Limited, 318, Shambhoo Nagar, Firozabad. Shikohabad. PAN :AABCH7576E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Sahib P. Satsangee, C.A. Department by Sh. R.P. Maurya, CIT (A)-1/DR Date of hearing 16.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 29.12.2025 ORDER PER : S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the learned Commissioner

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

1), Limited, 318, Shambhoo Nagar, Firozabad. Shikohabad. PAN :AABCH7576E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Sahib P. Satsangee, C.A. Department by Sh. R.P. Maurya, CIT (A)-1/DR Date of hearing 16.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 29.12.2025 ORDER PER : S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the learned Commissioner

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)

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

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)

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

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

SAGAR DWELLINGS P LTD,NEAR SUN TEMPLE GWALIOR vs. ACIT, FACELESS

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

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

section 143(3) r.w.s 147 rws 144B of income tax Act, and sustained by Ld. CIT (Appeals) is not tenable on facts and law. 9. BECAUSE, while making the assessment the 'AO' and while sustaining addition Ld. 'CIT(A)' made various observations/conclusions which are contrary to facts available on records. 10. BECAUSE, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing

ALAUDDIN,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16

section 151 of the Act. The statutory notice dated 31.03.2021 issued u/s. 148 and subsequent notice issued u/s. 142(1) with questionnaire dated 15.11.2021 stood un-responded by the assessee. The assessee, however, submitted his reply dated 20.02.2022 in response to notice u/s. 142(1) dated 24.12.2021, which as per Assessing Officer, was not found satisfactory. Thereafter, show cause notice

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

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

151 as expenditure which was carried out of infrastructure fund. (8) Because· the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs39,34, 135 in respect of old outstanding entries in bank reconciliation statement. (9) Because the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs 36,31,60,509 in respect of liabilities shown under

SH. MANOJ AGRAWAL,GWALIOR vs. I.T.O.-2(2), GWALIOR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is required to be failed and accordingly we dismiss both the appeals

disallowance for personal use of Telephone Rs.3,241/- ( a ) H o u s e h o l d W i t h d r a w a l s R s . 1 1 , 0 5 0 / - 5. The ld. AR had submitted that on 22 September 2008, the assessee filed a letter requesting the assessing officer to supply the copy

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

1-4-2011, stated that the service tax would be payable only on receipt of the same from the service receiver, hence how could the appellant pay the same when the service tax was not received from the service recipient, and therefore the same cannot be added u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act, as it never became

M/S R.K. BAJPAI,AURAIYA vs. CIT -1, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S R.K. Bajpai, Vs..Dcit,Circle-1, Dibiyapur, Auraiya. Agra. Panno.Aaffr8521G (Assessee) (Revenue)

1-12). 5. On the first issue, the Tribunal has held (page 10, para 6 of the order) as follows: “We hold that the impugned payments of Rs. 86,65,626/- on account of labour and transportation was not made to contractors and therefore provision of section 194C of the Act were not violated by the assessee. There was therefore

JOURA CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MORENA, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO, MORENA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19 Joura Co-Operative Marketing Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Society Limited Ward-1, Morena The Joura Dist Morena Dist. Morena Pan :Aabaj1828K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S. N. Agarwal, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Order

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in reopening the case of the appellant. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action

PARMANAND,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD, 2(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the I.T. Act whereas in the Assessment order the addition has been made u/s 69C of the I.T. Act. This is apparently bad in law and not permissible under the Act. Reasons recorded have to be read as it is. No substitution/deletion/addition in the reasons recorded is permissible under the law. On this ground also

NEETA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Neeta Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-23, New Agra, Agra Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpa0936E Assessee By : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

151 of I.T.Act, 1961 whereas it was wrong, giving in the mechanical manner without application of independent mind. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 95,20,372 under section 68 of the Act, 1961 whereas

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

151 of the Act. The assessee filed his return on 20.04.2021 declaring the same income as was originally declared, in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The reassessment was completed u/s 147 read with Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

151 of the Act. The assessee filed his return on 20.04.2021 declaring the same income as was originally declared, in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The reassessment was completed u/s 147 read with Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account