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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

63,017/- and accordingly, the total income was assessed at Rs.2,16,41,700/- 3. Aggrieved appellant, had filed appeal before the CIT(A) who vide his order dated 31.03.2016 and corrigendum thereto dated 30.09.2016 had sustained the additions/disallowances by endorsing the finding of 3 the assessing officer. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the appellant has filed this

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

63 Taxmann.com 289 (P & H), ‘Smt. Harshila Chordia vs. ITO’, 298 ITR 349 (Raj), Et al. It was held that even if the case of the assessee does not fall in any of the clauses of Rule 6DD of the Rules, invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act can be dispensed with if the assessee is able

DINESH CHAND KAUSHIK,ALIGARH vs. ITO, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2021-22

disallowance of various expenses claimed by assessee. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.3,63,46,544/- @ 200% of the amount of tax payable on the aforesaid two additions, vide penalty order dated 26.06.2023. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(A), who confirmed the penalty and dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 4. This second appeal has been

ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 250 of the Act, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed/dismissed assessee’sappeals respectively. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that both the appeals are time-barred by 39-40 days respectively. Delay condonation applications on behalf of Smt. RoshaniRaghuvanshi, staff member of the appellant are on record. The cause for the delay shown, is that

ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 250 of the Act, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed/dismissed assessee’sappeals respectively. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that both the appeals are time-barred by 39-40 days respectively. Delay condonation applications on behalf of Smt. RoshaniRaghuvanshi, staff member of the appellant are on record. The cause for the delay shown, is that

ANURAG MITTAL ,FIROZABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

disallowance is called for in the case of the ‘appellant’ as the Commission was duly paid in respect of services utilized by the ‘appellant’. 3 BECAUSE, interest under section 234A & 234B is either not chargeable or has excessively been charged. ITA No. 135 & 136/Agr/2018 3 Asst. Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 BECAUSE, while confirming the addition Ld ‘CIT(A)’ made

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), GWALIOR vs. SWASTIK ROADLINES P LTD, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is treated as partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd., [73 taxmann.com 63] (SC). Further, in this regard, our attention was drawn by the Ld.DR to Pgs.21-22 of the CIT(A)’s order, wherein the CIT(A) has held has under: “………….Subsequently

RAJVEER SINGH YADAV CONTRACTOR,ETAWAH vs. ITO-2(2)(5), , ETAWAH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 234B of the Act as the Income of the assessee is subjected to TDS. 5. BECAUSE, while making the assessment the authorities below made various observations/ conclusions which are contrary to facts available on records. While making the addition submission made and evidences filed have been rejected arbitrarily. , I.T.A No. 179/Agra/2018 3 6. BECAUSE, the order appealed against

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

disallowable interest amount by taking the rate of interest @ 3%, without appreciating the facts that the relatives or family members of the assessee ITA No.299 & 286 /Agr/2013 3 are claiming 15% rate of interest while unrelated parties are charging @8% to 6% . 3. That the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Agra has erred in law and on facts by restricting

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

disallowable interest amount by taking the rate of interest @ 3%, without appreciating the facts that the relatives or family members of the assessee ITA No.299 & 286 /Agr/2013 3 are claiming 15% rate of interest while unrelated parties are charging @8% to 6% . 3. That the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Agra has erred in law and on facts by restricting

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), AGRA vs. DR. ANIL KUMAR VERMA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the C

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaa.Y. :2009-10

63,500.00 and added the same in the income of the assessee. The main argument of the AO while adding these amount is that assessee has shown the total medical receipts amounting to Rs. 18,22,680/- and after deducting the expenses according to him the net profit comes to Rs. 6,33,343/- and that these deposits cannot ITA274/Agr/2013

PARMANAND,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD, 2(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the I.T. Act whereas in the Assessment order the addition has been made u/s 69C of the I.T. Act. This is apparently bad in law and not permissible under the Act. Reasons recorded have to be read as it is. No substitution/deletion/addition in the reasons recorded is permissible under the law. On this ground also