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

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

AJAY BHATIA,KANPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

disallowing the assessee’s revenue expenditure representing interest and remuneration payments etc. amounting to Rs.1,56,552/-; as not allowable under section 37

HARI OM AGARWAL,KOLARAS vs. ITO SHIVPURI, ASHOK NAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowing of the expenses(by estimate) out of the expenses claimed under the Head ‘general administration and selling expenses’ , claimed as per provisions of Section 37

MARSHAL SECURITY SERVICES,AGRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

37 of Rs. 1,04,35,000/-being\npayment made to Ganpati Communication by the assessee. The payments\nmade to Ganpati Communications was not part of Contract receipts and hence\nthe disallowance was outside the scope of issue in limited scrutiny. The\nquestion of TDS on payment of Rs. 1,04,35,000/- was also outside the scope\nof issue

SH. YUGAL KISHOR AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), ETAH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

37,45,896/- which became the reasons for belief of the Revenue that the income has escaped assessment. There are two additions made by the Assessing Officer. One is on account of disallowance of expenses of Rs.12,15,413/- by invoking the provisions of section

MOHD NAYEEM,JHANSI vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(5), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee including additional ground are remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21 Mohd Nayeem Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 74, Sadar Bazar Ward 2(3)(5), Jhanshi Jhansi Pan : Acfpn3382F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Nitin Goyal, Advocate & Sh. Amit Goyal, Advocate Department By Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per : S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assessee Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Of Learned Cit(Appeals) -2, Chennai Dated 05.12.2024 U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2020- 21. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice, Brief Facts Of The Case Relating To The Issues Are, Ld. Ar Submitted That The Assessee In Summary Assessment U/S 143(1) Of The Act Based On The Audit Report Disallowed The Amount Wherein The Auditor Has Declared In Form No. 3Cd That There Is Outstanding Payment Due Of Rs. 81,08,561/- To Gst, Based On The Above Audit Report,Cpc Has Disallowed The Above Said Outstanding U/S 43B Of The Act.

Section Nature of liability Amount Tax, Duty, Cess, Fee GST 8108561 etc (State No whether sales tax, goods & service Tax, customs duty, excise duty or any other indirect tax, levy, cess, impost, etc., is passed through the profit and loss account.) That at the outset there had been no requirement of such remark in the audit report if all such

SUMIT KUMAR,AGRA vs. ITO 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sumit Kumar, Vs. Ito, Village Rampura, Ward-1(1)(2), Gwalior Road, Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Buqpk7461L Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Agarwal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

37,900/- 5. It is pertinent to note that the parties had filed their confirmations together with their bank statements directly before the Learned AO in response to notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act. The Assessee had also submitted that those parties were not having taxable Sumit Kumar income and hence had not filed their income

MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

37(1)of the LT. Act,\n1961, without appreciating the fact that addition on account of 10% of total purchases held\nto be bogus, was firmly based on incriminating material found during the course of search\nproceeding as well as independent investigation made by the department and credible\ninputs from external agencies.\n2.\nThe Ld. CIT(A)-V, Kanpur

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

37(1)of the LT. Act,\n1961, without appreciating the fact that addition on account of 10% of total purchases held\nto be bogus, was firmly based on incriminating material found during the course of search\nproceeding as well as independent investigation made by the department and credible\ninputs from external agencies.\n2.\nThe Ld. CIT(A)-V, Kanpur

SATISH PRAKASH AGARWAL,AGRA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17

37,400/-. The contention of the assessee that once the interest expenditure is disallowed then there cannot be separate disallowance of the loss of Rs.10,06,625/-, as there will be positive income under the head income from business or profession (after considering disallowance of interest expenditure) ,but this contention was not accepted by the ld. CIT(Appeals

AL HAMD AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD,ALIGARH vs. DC/ACIT, ALIGARH

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

37,860/- on 29.10.2020. Case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer made several additions, including disallowance of commission paid, but tax not deducted to the extent of Rs.1

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

SURBHI ANAND,SOUTH DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2023-24] Surbhi Anand, Acit, C-155, Basement, Lajpat Circle-1(1)(1), Nagar-2, South Delhi, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Sanjay Place, Delhi-110024 Agra, Uttar Pradesh-282002 Pan-Acypa6580B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sahib P. Satsangi, Ca Respondent By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 Order, Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

disallowed the claim of the TDS credit of Rs. 24,04,000 reflected in Form 26AS for the impugned year resulting in appellant filing an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and also an online rectification under section 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7 Surbhi Anand The Id. CIT(A) passed the impugned order without issue of any notice

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)

37,940/- Rs.13,40,304/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2010-11 153A Rs.3,07,943/- Rs.1,02,41,352/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2011-12 153A Rs.4,03,908/- Rs.1,50,00,460/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2012-13 153A Rs.4,38,939/- Rs.2,30,94,073/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2013-14 153A Rs.10,18,269/- Rs.1

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)

37,940/- Rs.13,40,304/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2010-11 153A Rs.3,07,943/- Rs.1,02,41,352/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2011-12 153A Rs.4,03,908/- Rs.1,50,00,460/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2012-13 153A Rs.4,38,939/- Rs.2,30,94,073/- Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary AASPK9267B 2013-14 153A Rs.10,18,269/- Rs.1

GRAM VIKAS KALYAN SANSTHAN,MATHURA vs. I.T.O. (TDS), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhgram Vikas Kalyan Sansthan, Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds), Nagla Aklha, Sonkh – Goverdhan Road, Agra. Mathura – 281 123 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aaatg3272E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shalenndra Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025

section 201/201(1A) of the Act. In case, the payee declares the abovesaid income in their return of income and pays the due tax, the liability of the assessee is discharged and before making the disallowance, the Assessing Officer has to determine whether the assessee is in default or not u/s 201/201(1A). In 7 case, it is found that