SH. SACHIN ARORA,MATHURA vs. I.T.O.-3(4), MATHURA

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

ii) ITA No. 5020/2009 (Kar). “CIT vs. SSA Emerald Meadows”, ITA No. (iii) 380/2015 (Kar). “Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT”, 291 ITR 519 (SC). (iv) “Ashok Pai vs. CIT”, 292 ITR 11 (SC). (v) (vi) “CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd.”, 322 ITR 158 (SC). (vii) “Uma Shankar Agarwal vs. DCIT”, ITA No. 1831 to 1835/Kol/2015. (viii) “Suvaprasanan Bhatacharya

MS/ BHOLE BABA MILK FOOD INDUSTRIES,AGRA vs. THE A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

ii) ITA No. 5020/2009 (Kar). I.T.A No. 378/Agra/2014 6 “CIT vs. SSA Emerrald Meadows”, in ITA No. (iii) 380/2015 (Kar). “Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT”, 291 ITR 519 (SC). (iv) “Ashok Pai vs. CIT”, 292 ITR 11 (SC). (v) (vi) “CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd.”, 322 ITR 158 (SC). (vii) “Uma Shankar Agarwal vs. DCIT

ZILA SAHKARI BANK LTD,JHANSI vs. DCIT -2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

ii) ITA No. 5020/2009 (Kar). I.T.A No. 192/Agra/2017 6 & ITA No.193/Agra/2017 “CIT vs. SSA Emerrald Meadows”, in ITA No. (iii) 380/2015 (Kar). “Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT”, 291 ITR 519 (SC). (iv) “Ashok Pai vs. CIT”, 292 ITR 11 (SC). (v) (vi) “CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd.”, 322 ITR 158 (SC). (vii) “Uma Shankar Agarwal vs. DCIT

SMT. GARIMA MEHTA,GWALIOR vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(2), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

disallowed the assessee’s claim u/s 10A on the basis that the 21. assessee did not fulfill the conditions contained in section 10A. It was observed that the business premises of the assessee was not situated either in a Software Technology Park, or in a Special Category Zone, as required by the provisions of section 10A(1) (A); that

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

II, Mumbai vide order dated 10.06,2013 passed under section 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. That the aforesaid order of Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission was challenged | by the Commissioner of Income Tax. Gwalior by filing a Writ in the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh being Writ Petition No. 9026/2013. 4. That aforesaid

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

II, Mumbai vide order dated 10.06,2013 passed under section 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. That the aforesaid order of Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission was challenged | by the Commissioner of Income Tax. Gwalior by filing a Writ in the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh being Writ Petition No. 9026/2013. 4. That aforesaid

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

II, Mumbai vide order dated 10.06,2013 passed under section 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. That the aforesaid order of Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission was challenged | by the Commissioner of Income Tax. Gwalior by filing a Writ in the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh being Writ Petition No. 9026/2013. 4. That aforesaid

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

II, Mumbai vide order dated 10.06,2013 passed under section 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. That the aforesaid order of Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission was challenged | by the Commissioner of Income Tax. Gwalior by filing a Writ in the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh being Writ Petition No. 9026/2013. 4. That aforesaid

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

II, Mumbai vide order dated 10.06,2013 passed under section 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. That the aforesaid order of Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission was challenged | by the Commissioner of Income Tax. Gwalior by filing a Writ in the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh being Writ Petition No. 9026/2013. 4. That aforesaid

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

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)

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

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)

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

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

II, Agra. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CA Respondent by Sh. Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement 18.09.2019 ORDER Per Laliet Kumar, J.M.: This appeal is filed by assessee being aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 30.11.2017 on the following grounds : 1.1. Because under the facts and circumstances the order

M/S NAVADA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,AGRA vs. ITO 4(3), AGRA

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Disallowance of Rs, 19,90,604/- on account of sundry creditors. The A.O. has made addition Rs.19,90,604/- on the ground that the assessee has not furnished copy of account of sundry creditors and complete address and confirmation. Your honours kind attention is drawn to the written submissions made before the A.O. vide letter dated 03.02.2014 (copy enclosed) whereby

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

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)

II(Technical) of the Manual, which reads as under:- “9. Approval for assessment – An assessment order under Chapter XIV-B can be passed only with the previous approval of the range JCIT/Addl.CIT (for the period from 30-6-1995 to 31-12-1996 the approving authority was the CIT.). The Assessing Officer should submit the draft assessment order for such

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)

II(Technical) of the Manual, which reads as under:- “9. Approval for assessment – An assessment order under Chapter XIV-B can be passed only with the previous approval of the range JCIT/Addl.CIT (for the period from 30-6-1995 to 31-12-1996 the approving authority was the CIT.). The Assessing Officer should submit the draft assessment order for such

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

section 151 of the Act. The statutory notice dated 31.03.2021 issued u/s. 148 and subsequent notice issued u/s. 142(1) with questionnaire dated 15.11.2021 stood un-responded by the assessee. The assessee, however, submitted his reply dated 20.02.2022 in response to notice u/s. 142(1) dated 24.12.2021, which as per Assessing Officer, was not found satisfactory. Thereafter, show cause notice