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

viii) “SuvaprasananBhatacharya vs. ACIT”, ITA No. 1303/Kol/2010. (Kol). “SLK Properties vs. ITO”, ITA No. 140/PN/2014. (ix) “ACIT Panjwani” (x) vs. Deepesh M. ITA No.6330/Mum/2012 & 5878/Mum/2012. (ITAT, Mum). (xi) “CIT vs. Shri Chandrashekhran”, ITA No.61/2009 (Kar). (xii)“Sarita Milind Davare vs. ACIT”, ITA No. 2187/Mum/2014. (xiii)“MeherjeeCassinath Holdings P. Ltd. vs. ACIT”, ITA No.2555/Mum/2012. (xiv) “Rajeev Kumar Gupta

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

viii) “Suvaprasanan Bhatacharya vs. ACIT”, ITA No. 1303/Kol/2010. (Kol). “SLK Properties vs. ITO”, ITA No. 140/PN/2014. (ix) “ACIT Panjwani” (x) vs. Deepesh M. ITA No.6330/Mum/2012 & 5878/Mum/2012. (ITAT, Mum). (xi) “CIT vs. Shri Chandrashekhran”, ITA No.61/2009 (Kar). (xii)“Sarita Milind Davare vs. ACIT”, ITA No. 2187/Mum/2014. (xiii)“Meherjee Cassinath Holdings P. Ltd. vs. ACIT”, ITA No.2555/Mum/2012. (xiv) “Rajeev Kumar Gupta

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

viii) namely "Lata Agarwal & Uma Shivhare" and "Jatinder Kumar & Anita Saxena" respectively were not subjected to the proceedings under section 153A of the Act for the reasons that the said two cases were not centralized. 9. The sum and substance of the various finding as has been made in the assessment orders for A.Y. 2005-06 i.e first year

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

viii) namely "Lata Agarwal & Uma Shivhare" and "Jatinder Kumar & Anita Saxena" respectively were not subjected to the proceedings under section 153A of the Act for the reasons that the said two cases were not centralized. 9. The sum and substance of the various finding as has been made in the assessment orders for A.Y. 2005-06 i.e first year

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

viii) namely "Lata Agarwal & Uma Shivhare" and "Jatinder Kumar & Anita Saxena" respectively were not subjected to the proceedings under section 153A of the Act for the reasons that the said two cases were not centralized. 9. The sum and substance of the various finding as has been made in the assessment orders for A.Y. 2005-06 i.e first year

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

viii) namely "Lata Agarwal & Uma Shivhare" and "Jatinder Kumar & Anita Saxena" respectively were not subjected to the proceedings under section 153A of the Act for the reasons that the said two cases were not centralized. 9. The sum and substance of the various finding as has been made in the assessment orders for A.Y. 2005-06 i.e first year

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

viii) namely "Lata Agarwal & Uma Shivhare" and "Jatinder Kumar & Anita Saxena" respectively were not subjected to the proceedings under section 153A of the Act for the reasons that the said two cases were not centralized. 9. The sum and substance of the various finding as has been made in the assessment orders for A.Y. 2005-06 i.e first year

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

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

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

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

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

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

36,19,196/- while giving effect of the order of ITA No.216/Agr/2016, 183/Agr/2014,439/Agr/2015 & ITA No. 177/Agr/2014 12 CIT(A) u/s 251. The direction as well as addition in wholly illegal which may kindly be directed to be deleted. 31. Because the appellant craves leave to alter/ modify grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” “(1

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)

disallowances. However, Ld PCIT was of the opinion that the AO had not verified the above issues by overlooking the immediate cash withdrawals by Mr. Irfan or transfers to other accounts, may be dummy accounts maintained by him. The nature of cash withdrawals indicates modus operandi for providing accommodation entries, the immediate cash withdrawal and transfer of funds to other

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)

disallowances. However, Ld PCIT was of the opinion that the AO had not verified the above issues by overlooking the immediate cash withdrawals by Mr. Irfan or transfers to other accounts, may be dummy accounts maintained by him. The nature of cash withdrawals indicates modus operandi for providing accommodation entries, the immediate cash withdrawal and transfer of funds to other

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)

disallowances. However, Ld PCIT was of the opinion that the AO had not verified the above issues by overlooking the immediate cash withdrawals by Mr. Irfan or transfers to other accounts, may be dummy accounts maintained by him. The nature of cash withdrawals indicates modus operandi for providing accommodation entries, the immediate cash withdrawal and transfer of funds to other

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

viii) [2011] 12 taxmann.com 411 (Punjab & Haryana HC) CIT, Ludhiana vs. Santosh Box Factory (P) Ltd. (Para 2 Pg. 233) 13. Per contra the ld. DR for the revenue had submitted that a ) the assessee has failed to explain the reasons for submitting the inflated stock statement to the bank., b) The stock statement was given to the bank

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

viii) [2011] 12 taxmann.com 411 (Punjab & Haryana HC) CIT, Ludhiana vs. Santosh Box Factory (P) Ltd. (Para 2 Pg. 233) 13. Per contra the ld. DR for the revenue had submitted that a ) the assessee has failed to explain the reasons for submitting the inflated stock statement to the bank., b) The stock statement was given to the bank