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

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

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S PREM MOTORS PVT LTD., GWALIOR

The appeals of the department are dismissed

35,200/- from the property as against its fair value fixed by the Municipal Corporation. Thus, the actual rent received being higher than the municipal valuation should be treated as fair rent for the purpose of section 23 of the Act. It was further stressed that the huge deposit of Rs.2.00 Crore by M/s TAPL at substantially low rate

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

Disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act claimed for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.4,99,59,467 on sale of shares are hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal are allowed.” 13. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of the assessment

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

Disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act claimed for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.4,99,59,467 on sale of shares are hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal are allowed.” 13. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of the assessment

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

Disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act claimed for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.4,99,59,467 on sale of shares are hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal are allowed.” 13. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of the assessment

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

Disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act claimed for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.4,99,59,467 on sale of shares are hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal are allowed.” 13. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of the assessment

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

Disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act claimed for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.4,99,59,467 on sale of shares are hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal are allowed.” 13. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of the assessment

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

35 and section 37 of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 as applicable on Valuer as per provisions of sub section (2) of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, when matter is referred to Valuation officer for valuation. 2.3 Because the AVO has not acted judicially and fairly, rather acted arbitrarily and also did not conform to the principles of natural

M/S. VENUS AUTO FIROZABAD,FIROZABAD vs. ACIT-2 RANGE-5, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenavenus Auto Vs..Dcit-Range-5, Bye Pass Road, Firozabad. Firozabad. Panno.Aacfv2616H (Assessee) (Revenue)

35,250/-, directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance by giving benefit to the assessee of Rs. 39,45,705/-, being interest free advance available with it and of another Rs. 4 lacs advanced to one Venus Satiate Vehicle Service Pvt. Ltd. which advance has been believed to be made for business purposes.” The assessee’s appeal before

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

M/S BHOLE BABA MILK FOOD INDUSTRIES DHOLPUR,AGRA vs. J.C.I.T., RANGE -4, AGRA

In the result appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

35,937/- was spent in acquiring the above mentioned articles which was liable to be allowed within the provisions of section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because it was part of profit earned from Dholpur Unit and was not liable to be disallowed for the purpose of calculating the deduction u/s 80IB of the Income

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)

2(Delhi), has considered the identical issue wherein it was emphasized that approval was granted without examining the assessment records or the searched material and, Hon‟ble High Court in Paragraph 13, extracted the findings of the Tribunal as under:- “13. In another words, it was emphasized that the approval was granted without examining the assessment record or the search

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)

2(Delhi), has considered the identical issue wherein it was emphasized that approval was granted without examining the assessment records or the searched material and, Hon‟ble High Court in Paragraph 13, extracted the findings of the Tribunal as under:- “13. In another words, it was emphasized that the approval was granted without examining the assessment record or the search

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

SMT. SARLA DEVI,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

35,096/- u/s 69 of the Act and Rs.2,42,933/- u/s 69C of the Act, were confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), Ghaziabad vide order in Appeal No.48/2009-10/GZB-ALG, dated 21-02-2011. 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the penalty order dated 30.03.2012, as sustained by the ld. CIT(A), is void-ab-initio

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1) , GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court