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)

256/ AGRA/ 2014 4. The Ld.AR for the assessee has submitted that appellant has raised 11 grounds in the present appeal out of which, the assesseeis not pressing down 1 ,2 and 4 of the grounds of appeal. As a assessee is not pressing these ground , therefore these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. & 355/Agra/2014 & SA Nos. 1 to 3/Ag/2017

JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. ACIT 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)

256/ AGRA/ 2014 4. The Ld.AR for the assessee has submitted that appellant has raised 11 grounds in the present appeal out of which, the assesseeis not pressing down 1 ,2 and 4 of the grounds of appeal. As a assessee is not pressing these ground , therefore these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. & 355/Agra/2014 & SA Nos. 1 to 3/Ag/2017

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)

256/ AGRA/ 2014 4. The Ld.AR for the assessee has submitted that appellant has raised 11 grounds in the present appeal out of which, the assesseeis not pressing down 1 ,2 and 4 of the grounds of appeal. As a assessee is not pressing these ground , therefore these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. & 355/Agra/2014 & SA Nos. 1 to 3/Ag/2017

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

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

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

1. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Agra, hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)' erred, both in law and on facts, in holding that the assessment was within the limitation prescribed in section 153 of the ITAct Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the extension of time u/s 142(2C) beyond 29.05.2012 for Special Audit

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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

256 ITR 360. (GUJ HC) on the issue No substantial question of law can be raised, where sufficient document have been provided by the assessee to prove the cash credits u/s 68. CIT v Rohini Builders 254 ITR 275(SC) no addition can be made by the AO, just taking on fact the explanation found was not creditworthiness

MANISH MAHESHWARI,GWALIOR vs. JCIT RANGE-2, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him Though Specific Request Was Made To Admit The Same. Ground No. 2 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed Theaddition Of Rs. 67,530/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 40A(3) Of The Income Tax Act. (Ii) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Legally Erred In Rejecting The Appellant'Sspecificsubmissionand The Unavoidable Circumstances Under Which The Payment Wasmade. Ground No. 3 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed An Addition Of Rs. 1,11,038/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Disallowing The Claim Of Interest Paid Holding The Same To Be Not Allowable U/S 57(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act.”

disallowing the claim of interest paid holding the same to be not allowable u/s 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act.” 2. Apropos Ground No.1, the assessee has objected the addition of Rs.2.00 lakhs made u/s 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loan. 3. The Assessing Officer has observed in Para 3.5 of the assessment orderas under

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