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)

191. As a result, we hold that Dilip N. Shroff Case (supra) treats omnibus show-cause notices as betraying non-application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice. Conclusion: We have, thus, answered the reference as required

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)

191. As a result, we hold that Dilip N. Shroff Case (supra) treats omnibus show-cause notices as betraying non-application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice. Conclusion: We have, thus, answered the reference as required

M/S A K TRANSPORT AGENCY,FARRUKHABAD vs. CIT APPEAL, ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

disallowance of cash expenses u/s I.T.A No. 328/Agra/2016 6 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11) 40A(3) of the Act, there was, certainly, a mistake of law apparent from record. Reliance has been placed on ‘CIT vs. Popular Vehicle and Service Ltd.’, 191 Taxman 333 (Ker). Further, reference has also been made to section

SHRI KAILA DEVI ICE & COLD STORAGE,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -4(4) , AGRA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

disallowing the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IB (11A) of the IT Act, having found that the assessee had not fulfilled the conditions contained in the said section. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition. 3. The assessee is in further appeal. I.T.A No. 04/Agra/2015 3 4. I have heard both the parties and have perused the material

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 or Profession' and such total

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.”

section 40 A(3) and rule 6DD that they are intended to regulate business transactions and to prevent the use of unaccounted money or reduce the chances to use black money for business transactions. As held by the Supreme Court in Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh Vs. J.T.O. (1991) 191 ITR 667 (SC) Sec. 40A(3) does not eliminate considerations