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

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

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

disallowable item of expenditure, etc. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the book results were rejected by the Assessing Officer on insignificant grounds. DCIT v. Hanuman Sugar (Khandsari) Mills (P.) Ltd. [2014] 221 Taxman 156 (Allahabad) the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court approving the decision of the lower authorities affirmed that, the assessee cannot be penalized, especially

M/S BHOLE BABA MILK FOOD INDUSTRIES DHOLPUR,AGRA vs. J.C.I.T., RANGE -4, AGRA

In the result appeal is dismissed

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

1,75, 51,043/- claimed in the return of income. 3. Aggrieved assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) challenging vide ground no. 4 that net profit earned on trading of goods of Dholpur unit amounting to Rs. 62,25,935/- were not liable to be disallowed for purpose of calculating the deduction u/s 80IB

M/S GINNI FILAMENTS LTD.,MATHURA vs. A.C.I.T., RANGE-3, MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

disallowing deferred revenue expenses amounting to Rs.19,67,582/- without considering the facts that the same was never claimed in earlier years by the assessee and the same is being partly claimed on year to year basis in part and is being allowed accordingly consistently. 7. BECAUSE, on due consideration of facts and in the overall circumstances of the case

ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 250 of the Act, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed/dismissed assessee’sappeals respectively. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that both the appeals are time-barred by 39-40 days respectively. Delay condonation applications on behalf of Smt. RoshaniRaghuvanshi, staff member of the appellant are on record. The cause for the delay shown, is that

ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 250 of the Act, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed/dismissed assessee’sappeals respectively. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that both the appeals are time-barred by 39-40 days respectively. Delay condonation applications on behalf of Smt. RoshaniRaghuvanshi, staff member of the appellant are on record. The cause for the delay shown, is that

DY C.I.T.-3, MATHURA vs. M/S KOSHDA BUILDCON PVT. LTD., MATHURA

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed for

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

1. That the Ld. CIT (A)-1, Agra has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5,17,61,420/- because the applied percentage completion method in assessment order is correct as the "Project Completion Method" was not in existence before 01.04.2003. 2. That the decision of Ld. CIT (A)-1, Agra is not acceptable