RAMJI DAS GUPTA,GWALIOR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jaina.Y.: 2010-11 Shri Ramji Das Gupta, Vs. Acit, Circle-2, 247, Madhav Nagar, Gwalior. Gwalior Pan Acopg5414C (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed. Hence the addition of Rs. 11,69,841/- may kindly be deleted or in the alternative deduction of interest payment to the bank was clearly allowable under law as section 57

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)

57,000/- has been rightly deleted by the ld CITA. 19. With regard to bonus payment of Rs 1,31,750/-, the same was paid to various contractors and to various labourers and since the payment made to each labourer did not exceed Rs 10,000/-, there cannot be any disallowance under section

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

disallowance of expenses of Rs.12,15,413/- by invoking the provisions of section 57(iii) and other disallowance is of Rs.56

BRIJESH PODDAR M/S KRISHAN KANHAIYA TEXTILES,HATHARS vs. ITO WARD 4(3)(4), HATHRAS

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshshri Brijesh Poddar (Prop), Vs. Ito, M/S. Krishna Kanhiya Ward-4(3)(4), Poddar Textile, Hanuman Hathras Gali, Hathras, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Azgpp1350B Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Gargh, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

disallowed by the learned AO under Section 57 of the Act while completing the assessment on 12-03-2025. This

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

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

disallowance of the payment as deduction because TDS was not deducted. Therefore, the consequence of non-deduction of TDS when the payment is to a non-resident has an adverse consequence to the payer. Since it is mandatory in terms of Section 40 (a) (i) for the payer to deduct TDS from the payment to the non-resident, the latter

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)

section 43 B is not applicable in the case of the assessee. The findings of the ld. CIT(A) on the issue of service tax are perverse to that extent and can not be sustained. 6.5.1 In the above view, the grievance of the assessee on the issue of service tax is accepted as genuine and the addition so made

SH SANJAY BANSAL ,MORENA vs. A.C.I.T (CENTRAL), GWALIOR

In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed

Bench: learned CIT(Appeals) who has very exhaustively passed the impugned order in 60 pages and considered all the submissions of the assessee in the tabulated form and otherwise, which need not to be repeated again for the sake of brevity. However, learned CIT(Appeals) partly allowed assessee's appeal confirming the addition only to the extent of Rs.71,44,045/- as against addition of Rs.91,06,669/-. 4. Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds : "1.Because in any view, th

57,00,000/ for so called unexplained Cash deposit in Bank Account u/s 69 of the I.T. Act Rs. 9,44,045/- for so called Cash Purchases and disallowable expenditure uls 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD of the 1.T. Act Rs. 71,44,045/ is grossily arbitrary, highly unjust, unwarranted capricious, wrong. illegal, bad in facts

M/S RAJEEV KUMAR CONTRACTOR PVT.LTD.,FIROZABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

section 57(3) interest deduction against interest income from other sources could not be accepted in the assessee’s favour. 4. Both the learned representative reiterate their respective stand against and in support of correctness of the impugned revision directions. We first of all not in this factual backdrop that the assessee has filed his paper book running into

SHRI PUNEET BANGLA,AGRA vs. ITO 1(3), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

disallowed by the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A). 8. Heard. A reading of the order under appeal, at first blush, does not evince this factual position, as contended by the assessee, to have been so shown before the Authorities below. However, we have been taken through the copies of the documents certified to have been furnished before

M/S AGRA CINEMA EXHIBITORS P LTD,AGRA vs. ITO 4(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

disallowance made is wrong, illegal and liable to be deleted. Reliance placed: - 65ITR381 (SC) CIT vs. Walchand And Co. Private Ltd (Copy enclosed Pg. 3/1 to 3/7) In applying the test of commercial For determining whether an expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be adjudged from

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S PREM MOTORS PVT LTD., GWALIOR

The appeals of the department are dismissed

57,600/- being equivalent to six month’s rent. As regards M/s TAPL it was noted that assessee had rented out to them 100% of Basement, 50% of ground floor, 50% of Mezzanine and 100% of first floor of its property aggregating to 12600 Sq Ft @ 10,000/- per month and they had made a deposit of ITA 322 & 327/Agra/2015

MAYA SHIKSHAN PASHISHAN SANSTHAN,HATHRAS vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), HATHRAS

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

57,348/- were disallowed and tax was imposed on the entire gross receipts vide order dated 31.01.2020 u/s. 143(1) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal in limine, being beyond the period of limitation as provided u/s. 249(2) of the Act. 4. This second appeal

NAVIN CHAND,AGRA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(1), AGRA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed our direction

section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 about the income tax demand raised through a letter dated 07.11.2013 which had also been never received by the appellant and the same had been send at the old address of the appellant. 3) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I has erred in law and on facts in sustaining

SNEHA PANDEY,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

57,000/- on account of disallowance of indexed cost of improvement as LTCG, made by the Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 23.09.2022 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 2. At the very outset, we notice that the assessee filed this second appeal on 12.03.2025 against the impugned order passed on 15.05.2024. The reasons mentioned

MANISH MAHESHWARI,GWALIOR vs. JCIT RANGE-2, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him Though Specific Request Was Made To Admit The Same. Ground No. 2 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed Theaddition Of Rs. 67,530/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 40A(3) Of The Income Tax Act. (Ii) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Legally Erred In Rejecting The Appellant'Sspecificsubmissionand The Unavoidable Circumstances Under Which The Payment Wasmade. Ground No. 3 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed An Addition Of Rs. 1,11,038/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Disallowing The Claim Of Interest Paid Holding The Same To Be Not Allowable U/S 57(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act.”

disallowing the claim of interest paid holding the same to be not allowable u/s 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act.” 2. Apropos Ground No.1, the assessee has objected the addition of Rs.2.00 lakhs made u/s 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loan. 3. The Assessing Officer has observed in Para 3.5 of the assessment orderas under