PRAMOD KUMAR DUBEY,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,1(3), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in appeal arising out of the intimation issued under section 143(1) by the CPC, Bengaluru on 28.02.2025, for the assessment year 2024-25. 2. Facts of the Case 2.1 The assessee, an individual resident of India, had originally filed her return of income under section

TAHIR KHAN,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2014-15, wherein learned CIT(A)has dismissed assessee first appeal, confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, vide penalty order dated 16.03.2019. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as\n\"the Act\") for the assessment year 2016-17, wherein learned CIT(Appeals) has\ndismissed assessee's first appeal.\n2. Brief facts state that the assessee e-filed return of income on\n27.09.2016, declaring total income of Rs.21,55,530/-. Return was processed\nu/s. 143(1

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

disallowance of depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against the above said assessment order dated 31.03.2016, learned CIT(A) vide order dated 25.06.2025 affirmed the rejection of accounts and sustained the addition made by AO on account of low profit rate. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal in ITA No.342/Agr/2025 before the ITAT, which has been partly allowed

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

disallowance of depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against the above said assessment order dated 31.03.2016, learned CIT(A) vide order dated 25.06.2025 affirmed the rejection of accounts and sustained the addition made by AO on account of low profit rate. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal in ITA No.342/Agr/2025 before the ITAT, which has been partly allowed

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

250(4) of the Іпсоте Тах Act, in absence\nof which the appeal dismissed by the NFAC is highly unjustified,\nno addition is liable to be sustained, same is liable to be deleted.\n3.\nThat no capital gain arises on the compulsory acquisition\nof land acquired under RFCTLARR Act, the AO without making any\nenquiry and not having any evidence

HARI OM AGARWAL,KOLARAS vs. ITO SHIVPURI, ASHOK NAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

250 of the Income Tax Act. 8. That the AO has erred on facts and in law while making the addition by disallowing of the expenses(by estimate) out of the expenses claimed under the Head ‘general administration and selling expenses’ , claimed as per provisions of Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, no disallowance is called for being , books

PEHAL,CHHATARPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), GWALIOR

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

Bench: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR (Accountant Member)

1) as well as show cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act, show causing to the assessee that why deduction u/s. 11 may not be denied to the assessee as registration u/s. 12AA was granted vide order dated 14.09.2011 w.e.f. 01.04.2011, i.e., for the assessment year 2012-13, but the assessee has claimed exemption u/s. 11 for the impugned assessment

TOMAR AND BROTHERS,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(5), ETAWAH

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Ground No. 1, 2 & 3 raised by the assessee relate to the addition of Rs.21,12,576/- confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) pertaining to expenses incurred by the assessee in respect of purchase of material, labourexpenses, repair and maintenance, establishment, selling and administrative expenses

GINNI FILAMENTS LTD.,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2020-21, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. Brief facts state that the assessee is in the business of manufacturing knitted fabric, yarns and readymade garments and has manufacturing facilities in the state of Gujrat, Uttarakhand

MANISH KUMAR CHATURVEDI,JHANSI vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(2), JHANSI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Manish Kumar Chaturvedi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1882, Shivaji Nagar, Jhansic Ward-2(3)(2), 284001 Jhansi 284 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Akkpc5294Q Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/02/2025

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') by upholding the assessment order passed by ITO Ward, 2(3) (2), Jhansi [hereinafter referred to as the AO'] u/s 144 of the Act and not giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant despite appellant's written requests for seeking adjournment on reasonable

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2015-16, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. Briefly stating, the facts, leading to the present appeal, are that the assessee filed his return of income in ITR-4S on 26.03.2018, declaring an income of Rs.3

DEEPAK POPTANI,AGRA vs. J.A.O CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2019-20

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2019-20, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed assessee’s first appeal, resulting in confirmation of the order dated 10.04.2020 passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The second appeal of the assessee was also dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated

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)

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2014-15, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal, sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer.. 2(i). Brief facts state that the assessee is in the business of building construction. It filed its return of income

SH SANJAY BANSAL ,MORENA vs. A.C.I.T (CENTRAL), GWALIOR

In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed

Bench: learned CIT(Appeals) who has very exhaustively passed the impugned order in 60 pages and considered all the submissions of the assessee in the tabulated form and otherwise, which need not to be repeated again for the sake of brevity. However, learned CIT(Appeals) partly allowed assessee's appeal confirming the addition only to the extent of Rs.71,44,045/- as against addition of Rs.91,06,669/-. 4. Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds : "1.Because in any view, th

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment Year [A.Y] 2012-13, wherein learned CIT(A) has partly allowed assessee's appeal. ITA No. 31/Agr/ 2022 Brief facts relating to appeal state that assessee filed his return of 2. income for A.Y. 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs.4,22,200/-. Assessee stated

SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. At the outset itself ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the short issue for consideration inall the present appeals was the denial of grant of exemption claimed by the assessee u/s. 11 of the Act for the reason that the assessee trust

SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. At the outset itself ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the short issue for consideration inall the present appeals was the denial of grant of exemption claimed by the assessee u/s. 11 of the Act for the reason that the assessee trust

SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, , GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. At the outset itself ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the short issue for consideration inall the present appeals was the denial of grant of exemption claimed by the assessee u/s. 11 of the Act for the reason that the assessee trust