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

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

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 exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act claimed for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.4,99,59,467 on sale of shares are hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal are allowed.” 13. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of the assessment

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 exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act claimed for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.4,99,59,467 on sale of shares are hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal are allowed.” 13. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of the assessment

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 exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act claimed for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.4,99,59,467 on sale of shares are hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal are allowed.” 13. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of the assessment

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 exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act claimed for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.4,99,59,467 on sale of shares are hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal are allowed.” 13. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of the assessment

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 exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act claimed for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.4,99,59,467 on sale of shares are hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal are allowed.” 13. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of the assessment

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

37 of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 as applicable on Valuer as per provisions of sub section (2) of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, when matter is referred to Valuation officer for valuation. 2.3 Because the AVO has not acted judicially and fairly, rather acted arbitrarily and also did not conform to the principles of natural justice in issuing

BUNDELKHAND GRAMOTTHAN EVAM SHAIKCHHIK VIKAS SAMITI,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD EXEMPTION, AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2021-22

disallowing the amount based on Form-10B. 4. Aggrieved, assessee filed a rectification application u/s. 154 of the Act and the same was denied. 5. It was brought to my notice that while certifying the Form-10B, the auditor of assessee has, by mistake, filled column -3 row 3 as zero instead of Rs.14,84,424/-. He brought

ABC PAPER PRODUCTS,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1) AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed the claim for reason that no notification\nwas issued by the Central Government in terms of section 105(3) of the Act. Therefore, only\nissue remained for our consideration is whether any notification as provided in section\n105(3) is issued by the Central Government to this effect or not.\n16.3. Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 provides

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

37(1)of the LT. Act,\n1961, without appreciating the fact that addition on account of 10% of total purchases held\nto be bogus, was firmly based on incriminating material found during the course of search\nproceeding as well as independent investigation made by the department and credible\ninputs from external agencies.\n2.\nThe Ld. CIT(A)-V, Kanpur

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)

37,940/- Rs.13,40,304/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2010-11 153A Rs.3,07,943/- Rs.1,02,41,352/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2011-12 153A Rs.4,03,908/- Rs.1,50,00,460/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2012-13 153A Rs.4,38,939/- Rs.2,30,94,073/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2013-14 153A Rs.10,18,269/- Rs.1

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)

37,940/- Rs.13,40,304/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2010-11 153A Rs.3,07,943/- Rs.1,02,41,352/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2011-12 153A Rs.4,03,908/- Rs.1,50,00,460/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2012-13 153A Rs.4,38,939/- Rs.2,30,94,073/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2013-14 153A Rs.10,18,269/- Rs.1

SATISH PRAKASH AGARWAL,AGRA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17

2,75,00,000/-) and the assessee has received interest of Rs.30,37,400/- on capital deployed in the partnership firm, whereas the assessee has paid interest of Rs.50,83,665/-, which establishes that the rate of interest paid is more than the rate of interest received in the partnership firm. ICICI Bank has given loans to the assesseeat

MARSHAL SECURITY SERVICES,AGRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

37 of Rs. 1,04,35,000/-being\npayment made to Ganpati Communication by the assessee. The payments\nmade to Ganpati Communications was not part of Contract receipts and hence\nthe disallowance was outside the scope of issue in limited scrutiny. The\nquestion of TDS on payment of Rs. 1,04,35,000/- was also outside the scope\nof issue

SURESH CHAND GUPTA,JHANSI vs. DCIT-6, JHANSI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

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

37,86,820/- as against Rs.2,90,52,820/-. Being aggrieved from the AO’s order, the assessee went in appeal before the 4. ld. CIT(A), challenging the reopening of the case u/s 147 of the IT Act as in bad in law. 5. The ld. CIT(A) has rejected the legal ground of the assessee by observing

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

2) will be applicable is not correct. (1)The question arises whether the view taken by the AO is a possible view. The view taken by the AO is based on the following cases wherein it was held that the assessee other than the person in whose name the tax was deducted at source will be allowed TDS credit

DCIT EXMP.CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. BIRLA JAN SEWA TRUST, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13

section 13(3) of the Act, The AO has made the disallowance because he was of the opinion that excessive payment has been made by the appellant to these persons. (ii) Payment to Dr. RavishankarDalmia- Dr. Dalmia is DM Cardiology and HOD of DMBIMR Heart Center. The gross receipts of this heart center in the financial year