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

IV, 13. Ahmedabad”, in ITA No. 2078/Ahd/2006, the ground raised by the assessee for adjudication was as under: I.T.A No. 378/Agra/2014 9 “The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that there was no satisfaction as regards concealment of income or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars while passing the assessment order. It is submitted that

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

IV, 13. Ahmedabad”, in ITA No. 2078/Ahd/2006, the ground raised by the assessee for adjudication was as under: “The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that there was no satisfaction as regards concealment of income or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars while passing the assessment order. It is submitted that in absence of such

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

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

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

iv) Sakshi &OhhayaBhaltad, Morena (v) Vandana Jam & Rama Bansal. Morena (vi)Manoj Kumar & Sharmila Agarwal, Morena ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 19 9. That during the course of search and seizure action as aforesaid the Authorized Officers had recorded the statements of the members of the above named AOPs, under section 132(4) of the Act. 10. That in their statements

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

iv) Sakshi &OhhayaBhaltad, Morena (v) Vandana Jam & Rama Bansal. Morena (vi)Manoj Kumar & Sharmila Agarwal, Morena ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 19 9. That during the course of search and seizure action as aforesaid the Authorized Officers had recorded the statements of the members of the above named AOPs, under section 132(4) of the Act. 10. That in their statements

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

iv) Sakshi &OhhayaBhaltad, Morena (v) Vandana Jam & Rama Bansal. Morena (vi)Manoj Kumar & Sharmila Agarwal, Morena ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 19 9. That during the course of search and seizure action as aforesaid the Authorized Officers had recorded the statements of the members of the above named AOPs, under section 132(4) of the Act. 10. That in their statements

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

iv) Sakshi &OhhayaBhaltad, Morena (v) Vandana Jam & Rama Bansal. Morena (vi)Manoj Kumar & Sharmila Agarwal, Morena ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 19 9. That during the course of search and seizure action as aforesaid the Authorized Officers had recorded the statements of the members of the above named AOPs, under section 132(4) of the Act. 10. That in their statements

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

iv) Sakshi &OhhayaBhaltad, Morena (v) Vandana Jam & Rama Bansal. Morena (vi)Manoj Kumar & Sharmila Agarwal, Morena ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 19 9. That during the course of search and seizure action as aforesaid the Authorized Officers had recorded the statements of the members of the above named AOPs, under section 132(4) of the Act. 10. That in their statements

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

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

iv) That, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law by deleting the part addition of Rs. 1,44,66,004/- out of total addition of Rs.3,53,23,000/-, on account of no tax was deducted as per section 40(a)(ia) of IT Act, in view of decision of Hon'ble High court Allahabad in the case

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

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

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 90,95,46.485/- on account of bogus purchase of Raw Boneless Meat, without appreciating the fact that some of the suppliers of raw boneless meat, under verification u/s 133(6) of the Act, have

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 90,95,46.485/- on account of bogus purchase of Raw Boneless Meat, without appreciating the fact that some of the suppliers of raw boneless meat, under verification u/s 133(6) of the Act, have

HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 90,95,46.485/- on account of bogus purchase of Raw Boneless Meat, without appreciating the fact that some of the suppliers of raw boneless meat, under verification u/s 133(6) of the Act, have

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

iv) Judgment in the case of Income-tax Officer. Vs. Swaran Fastners CITreported in (133 taxmann.com 454 Chandigarh-b) vide order dated 18.02.2021 Copy placed at pages 18 to 32 of judgment set. v)Judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. United Commercial and Industrial Company Pvt. Ltd, passed dated 10/06

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

disallowing interest in excess of interest 12% to relatives u/s 40A(2)(b) viz-a-viz (i) Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, (ii) Ramesh Chand Sharma HUF, (iii) Devangi Sharma, and (iv) Smt. Shivangi Sharma is arbitrary, unjust, excessive, and against the facts and law of the case. 34. The ld. AR had drawn our attention to the order passed