SH. SACHIN ARORA,MATHURA vs. I.T.O.-3(4), MATHURA

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

disallowed in quantum proceedings, was certified to be correct by the Chartered Accountant, who furnished the prescribed certificate in Form No.10CCB. The Hon'ble High Court held that mere filing of Form issued by the Chartered Accountant in order to comply with a statutory procedural requirement will not absolve the assessee of its liability, if the act of claiming deduction

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

disallowed in quantum proceedings, was certified to be correct by the Chartered Accountant, who furnished the prescribed certificate in Form No.10CCB. The Hon'ble High Court held that mere filing of Form issued by the Chartered Accountant in order to comply with a statutory procedural requirement will not absolve the assessee of its liability, if the act of claiming deduction

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

disallowed in quantum proceedings, was certified to be correct by the Chartered Accountant, who furnished the I.T.A No. 378/Agra/2014 11 prescribed certificate in Form No.10CCB. The Hon'ble High Court held that mere filing of Form issued by the Chartered Accountant in order to comply with a statutory procedural requirement will not absolve the assessee of its liability

M/S KALYANI BUILDWELL PRIVATE LTD,AGRA vs. ACIT CIRCLE4(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S Kalyani Buildwell (P) Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Kalyani Point, Near Tulsi Income-Tax, Circle-4(1), Agra Cinema, Bye-Pass Road, Agra Pan No: Aacck7095G (Assessee) (Revenue)

48,000/- and Rs. 7,49,705/-respectively. 5.1 while confirming the addition, the ld. CIT(A) observed that no proof of payment of salary has been placed on the record of the AO nor any evidence has been placed before him. He further observed that no justification for the increase in director’s salary has been given

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)

48,269/- being the excess shown in the 'income and expenditure' account. The authorities below have erroneously disallowed the benefit of exemption u/s 11 claimed by the appellant. The disallowance is again in utter disregard to the authoritative judicial pronouncements. The exemption u/s 11, being in accordance with report in 10B, may kindly be directed to be granted. 5. Because

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)

48,269/- being the excess shown in the 'income and expenditure' account. The authorities below have erroneously disallowed the benefit of exemption u/s 11 claimed by the appellant. The disallowance is again in utter disregard to the authoritative judicial pronouncements. The exemption u/s 11, being in accordance with report in 10B, may kindly be directed to be granted. 5. Because

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)

48,269/- being the excess shown in the 'income and expenditure' account. The authorities below have erroneously disallowed the benefit of exemption u/s 11 claimed by the appellant. The disallowance is again in utter disregard to the authoritative judicial pronouncements. The exemption u/s 11, being in accordance with report in 10B, may kindly be directed to be granted. 5. Because

SMT. NEETA SHARMA,AGRA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 40A(3A). She further relies on ‘Shri Tejveer Singh vs. ITO’, order dated 03.06.2016, passed by the Agra ITAT, in ITA 329/Agra/2015, for A.Y. 2008-09 and on ‘R.C. Goel vs. CIT’, order dated [relied on before the ld. CIT(A) also] dated 04.12.2012, passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ITA 636/2012

PRAMOD KUMAR DUBEY,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,1(3), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

48,263 4. The assessee opted for new regime of taxation. As the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration did not exceed Rs. 7 lakhs, the assessee was eligible for tax rebate under Section 87A of the Act. The tax rebate under Section 87A of the Act is allowable on total income earned by the assessee

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 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, 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

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

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

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

disallowances of Rs.3,86,48,071/- out of establishment expenses, Rs.2,75,75,256/- out of administrative expenses and Rs.60,86,001/- out of amortization/depreciation. while working out the addition as sustained by him. The addition made by Ld. CIT(A), tantamount to enhancement which is wholly illegal and ITA No.216/Agr/2016, 183/Agr/2014,439/Agr/2015 & ITA No. 177/Agr/2014 6 contrary to established

DINESH CHANDRA DUTTA,ALIGARH vs. CIT A, ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2015-16

48,90,000/- in another flat in Desire Residency, Khasra No. 520, Mohiuddinpur, Kanawani, Noida. The Assessing Officer observed that deduction u/s. 54 could be allowed only in respect of one flat. 3. The assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who sustained the disallowance on the premise that the legal position has changed w.e.f. 01.04.2015 and in section

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

disallowing net profit on trading goods of Dholpur unit amounting to Rs.62,35,937/- while calculating deduction u/s 80IB and hence deduction u/s 80IB computed by the AO at Rs. 1,20,99.937/- is confirmed and accordingly, Ground No. 4 is dismissed. 4. The ld. AR has reiteratedthe submissions made before the ld.CIT(A) and filed a written submission dated

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

disallowance made by the assessing officer for than amount of Rs.131,91,325/-. 17. Further from the perusal of the order of the assessing officer it is amply clear that the notices issued under section 133(6) were duly received by the five persons namely Gautam Associate, Ram Kumar and Sons, Aporva Traders. However, the reply to this said notices