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

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

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

24,51,350/- by ignoring the provisions of sec.13(8) and allowing exemption u/s 11(1 )(a) r.w. 11 (2) of the I.T. Act. (iii) That, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.10,16,129/-,on account of electricity expenses, by ignoring the facts brought on record by the AO that

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

vi)Manoj Kumar & Sharmila Agarwal, Morena ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 19 9. That during the course of search and seizure action as aforesaid the Authorized Officers had recorded the statements of the members of the above named AOPs, under section 132(4) of the Act. 10. That in their statements, recorded under section 132(4), they had stated that

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

vi)Manoj Kumar & Sharmila Agarwal, Morena ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 19 9. That during the course of search and seizure action as aforesaid the Authorized Officers had recorded the statements of the members of the above named AOPs, under section 132(4) of the Act. 10. That in their statements, recorded under section 132(4), they had stated that

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

vi)Manoj Kumar & Sharmila Agarwal, Morena ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 19 9. That during the course of search and seizure action as aforesaid the Authorized Officers had recorded the statements of the members of the above named AOPs, under section 132(4) of the Act. 10. That in their statements, recorded under section 132(4), they had stated that

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

vi)Manoj Kumar & Sharmila Agarwal, Morena ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 19 9. That during the course of search and seizure action as aforesaid the Authorized Officers had recorded the statements of the members of the above named AOPs, under section 132(4) of the Act. 10. That in their statements, recorded under section 132(4), they had stated that

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

vi)Manoj Kumar & Sharmila Agarwal, Morena ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 19 9. That during the course of search and seizure action as aforesaid the Authorized Officers had recorded the statements of the members of the above named AOPs, under section 132(4) of the Act. 10. That in their statements, recorded under section 132(4), they had stated that

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

24-10-2011. being procedural in nature, would have retrospective effect and has to be given effect to. 20. The Revenue cannot be allowed to retain tax deducted at source without credit being available to anybody. If credit of tax is not allowed to the assessee, and the joint venture has not filed a return of income, then credit

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2) of the Act was/were not complied with. According to the second and third notices, the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income/furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. 13. In the assessment order dated 10.12.2009, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income were initiated

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

vi). Reliance is being placed on the judgment of Loil Continental Foods Ltd. Vs PCIT, in ITA No. 577/Chd/2017 (Chd-Trib.) vide order, dated 04.12.2019, in which, in para 17 of the judgment, it has been held as under:- “17. The ld. CIT made reference to the Explanation-2 to Section 263 and also decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

vi). Reliance is being placed on the judgment of Loil Continental Foods Ltd. Vs PCIT, in ITA No. 577/Chd/2017 (Chd-Trib.) vide order, dated 04.12.2019, in which, in para 17 of the judgment, it has been held as under:- “17. The ld. CIT made reference to the Explanation-2 to Section 263 and also decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

vi). Reliance is being placed on the judgment of Loil Continental Foods Ltd. Vs PCIT, in ITA No. 577/Chd/2017 (Chd-Trib.) vide order, dated 04.12.2019, in which, in para 17 of the judgment, it has been held as under:- “17. The ld. CIT made reference to the Explanation-2 to Section 263 and also decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

2. Facts, for convenience, are being taken from ITA No. 118/Agra/2015, the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 against the CIT(A)’s order confirming penalty of Rs.98,000/- imposed on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. AIR information was received in respect of the assessee, as per which, cash deposits amounting to Rs.65

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

2. Facts, for convenience, are being taken from ITA No. 118/Agra/2015, the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 against the CIT(A)’s order confirming penalty of Rs.98,000/- imposed on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. AIR information was received in respect of the assessee, as per which, cash deposits amounting to Rs.6541003

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

2. Facts, for convenience, are being taken from ITA No. 118/Agra/2015, the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 against the CIT(A)’s order confirming penalty of Rs.98,000/- imposed on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. AIR information was received in respect of the assessee, as per which, cash deposits amounting to Rs.6541003

SMT. NEETA SHARMA,AGRA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2007-08

vi) [2017] 88 taxmann.com 506 (Gujarat High Court) CIT vs. Patel Proteins (P) Ltd. (Para 2 Pg. 222) (vii) [2013] 40 taxmann.com 177 (Gujarat High Court) CIT, Ahmedabad vs. Riddhi Steel and Tube (P) Ltd. (Para 9.2 Pg. 230) (viii) [2011] 12 taxmann.com 411 (Punjab & Haryana HC) CIT, Ludhiana vs. Santosh Box Factory (P) Ltd. (Para 2

A.C.I.T.-2, AGRA vs. SMT. NEETA SHARMA PROP., AGRA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2007-08

vi) [2017] 88 taxmann.com 506 (Gujarat High Court) CIT vs. Patel Proteins (P) Ltd. (Para 2 Pg. 222) (vii) [2013] 40 taxmann.com 177 (Gujarat High Court) CIT, Ahmedabad vs. Riddhi Steel and Tube (P) Ltd. (Para 9.2 Pg. 230) (viii) [2011] 12 taxmann.com 411 (Punjab & Haryana HC) CIT, Ludhiana vs. Santosh Box Factory (P) Ltd. (Para 2