ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA vs. JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI

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)

section 2(15) of the I. T. Act, as amended from 01.04.2009. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant is carrying on non commercial activities for which registration u/s 12A had been granted. The authorities below could not legally hold the charitable objects as of commercial nature during the subsistence of registration u/s 12A in view of authoritative

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

disallowable interest amount by taking the rate of interest @ 3%, without appreciating the facts that the relatives or family members of the assessee ITA No.299 & 286 /Agr/2013 3 are claiming 15% rate of interest while unrelated parties are charging @8% to 6% . 3. That the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Agra has erred in law and on facts by restricting

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

disallowable interest amount by taking the rate of interest @ 3%, without appreciating the facts that the relatives or family members of the assessee ITA No.299 & 286 /Agr/2013 3 are claiming 15% rate of interest while unrelated parties are charging @8% to 6% . 3. That the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Agra has erred in law and on facts by restricting

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

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

disallowances of Rs.3,86,48,071/- out of establishment expenses, Rs.2,75,75,256/- out of administrative expenses and Rs.60,86,001/- out of amortization/depreciation. while working out the addition as sustained by him. The addition made by Ld. CIT(A), tantamount to enhancement which is wholly illegal and ITA No.216/Agr/2016, 183/Agr/2014,439/Agr/2015 & ITA No. 177/Agr/2014 6 contrary to established

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

256 ITR 243(Raj.). 3. BECAUSE, the authorities below erred on facts in making and sustaining addition of Rs. 12,26,645/- on account of notional gain on foreign currency as income without considering the facts that the same is unrealizable and notional. 4. BECAUSE, the authorities below had fallen in error in disallowing prior period expenses amounting

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)

256 ITR 1(Delhi). She also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala – [2000] 245 ITR 360(SC) and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited– [2019] 104 taxmann.com 25(SC). 19. I noted that the case law cited by the learned CIT-DR of Spacewood

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)

256 ITR 1(Delhi). She also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala – [2000] 245 ITR 360(SC) and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited– [2019] 104 taxmann.com 25(SC). 19. I noted that the case law cited by the learned CIT-DR of Spacewood

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, MORENA vs. SHRI AGRASEN LOGISTICS, JOTAI ROAD, PORSA,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

256 ITR 360.\n(GUJ HC) on the issue\nNo substantial question\nof law can be raised,\nwhere\nsufficient\ndocument have been\nprovided by the\nassessee to prove the\ncash credits u/s 68.\nCIT v Rohini Builders\n254 ITR 275(SC) no\naddition can be made\nby the AO, just taking\non fact the explanation\nfound\nwas\nnot\ncreditworthiness

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

disallowance on fixed assets. The perusal of the impugned assessment order would reveal that the ld. Assessing Officer while considering the net profit rate of the assessee has given a comparative analysis of the turnover and profits of the appellant for the three assessment years as under: A.Y. Sales (Rs.) GP (Rs) G.P. Rate NP(Rs.) N.P. Rate

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

256/-\nTotal\n6,14,81,388/-\n1,53,70,347/-\nLearned AR has referred order dated 17.03.2025 passed by Jaipur Bench of\nthe Tribunal in ITA No. 902/JPR/2024, Suchita Bhatia V. the DCIT in support\nof his arguments, praying to delete the addition and quash the impugned\norder.\n7. Learned Sr. DR for the revenue has submitted that assessee