VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house\nproperty of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account\nof unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the\nsum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of\nRs. 2,50,000/-. These

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house\nproperty of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account\nof unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the\nsum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of\nRs. 2,50,000/-. These

ACIT CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. SHARMA & ASSOCIATES FIRETECH PVT LTD, GWALIOR

In the result, we do not find any error as the assessee has failed to establish the

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2010-11

46A. Since there is no ground raised before us whereby the assessee has challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) for rejecting the application for filing the additional document/evidence, in our view the assessee does not deserve any indulgence from this Tribunal. Accordingly, the Ground No.1 of cross objection is dismissed. Besides the above, we are of the opinionthat

DCIT EXMP.CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. BIRLA JAN SEWA TRUST, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance because he was of the opinion that excessive payment has been made by the appellant to these persons. (ii) Payment to Dr. RavishankarDalmia- Dr. Dalmia is DM Cardiology and HOD of DMBIMR Heart Center. The gross receipts of this heart center in the financial year 2010-11 was Rs.2,39,60,000/- and the appellant has paid as salary

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-. These

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-. These

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-. These

DY C.I.T.-3, MATHURA vs. M/S KOSHDA BUILDCON PVT. LTD., MATHURA

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed for

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

section 32. Thus, under the facts and circumstances of this case, no addition in respect of these expenses totaling Rs. 2, 10,05,436/- can be legally made. • The remaining disallowed expenses total Rs. 3,07,55,984/- , out of which Rs.2,81,61,680/- are categorized under the head of Finance Charges while the rest are marketing expenses

MADHURI JAISWAL,GWALIOR, MADHYA PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT 3(1), GWL, GWALIOR, MADHYAPRADESH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

section 68 cannot be applied in respect of income from a source which has already been taxed which would amount to double taxation, Gross Receipt from business has been accepted by assessing officer during the course of assessment, never rejected the books of account as well as no any expenses were disallowed of PL. account whereas case was selected

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, MORENA vs. SHRI AGRASEN LOGISTICS, JOTAI ROAD, PORSA,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowed interest claimed/paid in relation\nto those credits in assessment year under consideration or even in subsequent assessment\nyears, and tax at source had been deducted out of interest paid/credited to creditors,\nTribunal was justified in deleting addition made - Held, yes - Whether as there was no\nsubstance in appeal and no substantial question of law arose, appeal was liable

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

46A of the I.T. Rules on one hand and taking its authenticity as not established-oil other hand, and in the peculiar facts of ;r opportunity of being heard not given by the A.O. 2. Because in any view, the addition made and confirmed by Id. CIT(A) of Rs.10,70,553/- out of total addition of Rs.85

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

46A of the I.T. Rules on one hand and taking its authenticity as not established-oil other hand, and in the peculiar facts of ;r opportunity of being heard not given by the A.O. 2. Because in any view, the addition made and confirmed by Id. CIT(A) of Rs.10,70,553/- out of total addition of Rs.85

SH. SRIDHAR PANDEY,AURAIYA vs. A.C.I.T.-2, AGRA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 292C of the Act, the diary is to be attributed to as belonging to the assessee and addition to be confirmed in the hands of the assessee.Theaddition of ₹16,70,000/- made in the hands of the assessee is therefore directed to be deleted . 11. Ground of appeal No. 1 is accordingly allowed. 12. Ground of appeal

SHRI SRIDHAR PANDEY S/O,AURAIYA vs. A.C.I.T.-2, AGRA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 292C of the Act, the diary is to be attributed to as belonging to the assessee and addition to be confirmed in the hands of the assessee.Theaddition of ₹16,70,000/- made in the hands of the assessee is therefore directed to be deleted . 11. Ground of appeal No. 1 is accordingly allowed. 12. Ground of appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. ADITYA PANDEY, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

disallowed Rs.2,00,000/- u/s. 80C & 80D of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act were also initiated against the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals). Learned CIT(Appeals) found that the appellant assessee is a salaried person and was working as Executive Engineer of EDD-II, Ghazipur(PVVNL

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. ADITY PANDEY, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

disallowed Rs.2,00,000/- u/s. 80C & 80D of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act were also initiated against the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals). Learned CIT(Appeals) found that the appellant assessee is a salaried person and was working as Executive Engineer of EDD-II, Ghazipur(PVVNL