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)

section 2(15) of the I. T. Act, as amended from 01.04.2009. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant is carrying on non commercial activities for which registration u/s 12A had been granted. The authorities below could not legally hold the charitable objects as of commercial nature during the subsistence of registration u/s 12A in view of authoritative

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

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." 26. It was submitted that on the basis of the above that once the submission has been accepted by the Settlement Commission then

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." 26. It was submitted that on the basis of the above that once the submission has been accepted by the Settlement Commission then

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." 26. It was submitted that on the basis of the above that once the submission has been accepted by the Settlement Commission then

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." 26. It was submitted that on the basis of the above that once the submission has been accepted by the Settlement Commission then

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." 26. It was submitted that on the basis of the above that once the submission has been accepted by the Settlement Commission then

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1), GWALIOR vs. ROYAL AUTOMOBILES P LTD, GWALIOR

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: The Ao.

46,83,472/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act, in respect of the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. 2.1 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of automobiles. The Assessing Officer made addition towards loan from

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1), GWALIOR vs. ROYAL AUTOMOBILES P LTD, GWALIOR

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: The Ao.

46,83,472/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act, in respect of the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. 2.1 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of automobiles. The Assessing Officer made addition towards loan from

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA vs. ALNOOR EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act totaling to Rs. 14,31,847/- on the outstanding loans which are tabulated as under:- | S. No. | Name | PAN | Rate of interest | Amount of interest paid | |--------|-------------------|--------------|------------------|-------------------------| | 1. | Arun Raj Sud | FEGPS6848P | 8% | 2,49,563 | | 2. | Ashwin Raj Sud | FAYPS1489A | 8% | 2,49,184 | | 3. | RadhikaSud | CHAPS6447N | 8& | 2,63,094 | | 4. | AdityaRaiSud

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA vs. ALNOOR EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act totaling to Rs. 14,31,847/- on the outstanding loans which are tabulated as under:- S. No. Name PAN Rate of interest Amount of interest paid 1. Arun Raj Sud FEGPS6848P 8% 2,49,563 2. Ashwin Raj Sud FAYPS1489A 8% 2,49,184 3. RadhikaSud CHAPS6447N 8& 2,63,094 4. AdityaRaiSud

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

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC erred in restricting the deduction of interest expense only to the extent of interest income thereby maintaining the disallowance on account of interest expense to the extent of Rs. 20,46,265/- out of the total disallowance

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

section 12AA of the Act by Ld. CIT -2, Agra on 05.02.2014 w.e.f. from 01.04.2013. Since for the year under consideration I.T.A Nos. 296 & 264/Agra/2016 3 registration u/s 12AA of the IT Act was not available to the Assessee Society, the AO assessed the assessee’s net surplus of income over expenditure of Rs.42,94,078/-. The AO had also

SURESH CHAND GUPTA,JHANSI vs. DCIT-6, JHANSI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

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

46,630/-. From the perusal of Balance sheet, Profit and loss account, assessment order and other documents placed on record, it is noticed that the Assessing Officer has rejected the books of accounts of the assessee u/s 145(3) of the Income Tax Act and assessed income of the assessee only on total contract receipt (on percentage basis) of work

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

2) of the Act was/were not complied with. According to the second and third notices, the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income/furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. 13. In the assessment order dated 10.12.2009, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income were initiated

GOPALDAS SHIVHARE,GUNA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 40A(3) of the IT Act: S. No. Date of Particulars Amount Payment paid in cash 1. 8.8.2009 Metro Cold (11900 + 11500) 23,400/- 2. 8.8.2009 New Modern Hot & Cold 21,900/- (11900 + 10,000) Total 45,300/- I.T.A No. 136/Agra/2016 4 Again the assessee could not furnish any reply, or the concerned bills and vouchers

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

46,51,327/- computed by the assessee during the assessment proceeding instead of Rs. 1,75, 51,043/- claimed in the return of income. 3. Aggrieved assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) challenging vide ground no. 4 that net profit earned on trading of goods of Dholpur unit amounting to Rs. 62,25,935/- were not liable