VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1) , GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

73 taxmann.com 241, the appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11485 of 2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises. 23. The appeals are accordingly dismissed

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

73 taxmann.com 241, the appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11485 of 2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises. 23. The appeals are accordingly dismissed

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

73 taxmann.com 241, the appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11485 of 2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises. 23. The appeals are accordingly dismissed

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

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

Disallowance under the provisions of section 43A(3) of the Act 4.1.3 The appellant has furnished copy of purchase bills (page no. 68 to 73

TAHIR KHAN,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowance of various other expenses amounting to Rs.50,000/- and addition of Rs.97,31,000/- u/s. 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Based on the above additions, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and imposed penalty of Rs.83,45,158/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The aforesaid additions made by the Assessing Officer stood confirmed by learned

DIXIT RICE MILL ,AURAIYA vs. DCIT, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

disallowance being made is against the principle of natural justice and bad in law and hence liable to be deleted. 5. Because the additional grounds of appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) have not been considered by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. Because on facts and in the circumstances of the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. CHITAVALSAH JUTE MILLS LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Acit, Vs. Chitavalasah Jute Mills Ltd, Range-1, 73-74, 201, Sheetala House, Faridabad Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccc6834D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

73-74, 201, Sheetala House, Faridabad Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AACCC6834D Assessee by : None Revenue by: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR Date of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date of pronouncement 04/12/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No. 99/AGR/2025 for AY 2012-13, arises out of the order

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

MAHIM PATRAN P. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT -2, AGRA

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 199. It therefore applies to pending proceedings. As observed in State of Madras v. Lateef Hamid & Co. AIR 1972 SC 1781, where a new procedure is prescribed by law, it governs all pending cases. ITA Nos. 195 & 196/Agr/2015 11 19. In Tikaram & Sons v. Commissioner of Sales Tax AIR 1968 SC 1286 it was held that alterations

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

73,46,630/-. 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

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

PRAMOD KUMAR GOYAL,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3) GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

73,160/-. On the basis of AIR information, the assessment was completed vide order dated 23.03.2016 u/s. 143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer, assessing total income of Rs.14,84,160/- after disallowing the claim of exemption amounting to Rs.10,11,000/- made by assessee u/s. 54B of the Act out of the long term capital gains, which

ANUPAM MITTAL,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

disallowance of payment of interest) without properly appreciating the facts brought on record by the Appellant during the course of assessment and appellate proceedings. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) (NFAC) has grossly misconceived the provisions of section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 through which the onus automatically shifts upon the Assessing Officer to make

SHUSHIL KUMAR GAUTAM,GABHANA ALIGARH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER 4(1)(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

section 28 of the Act. The Assessing Officer further held that since the assessee did not maintain any books of accounts, the assessee is not considered to claim any deduction u/s 30 to 38 of the Act, which the assessee also failed to establish. 3.2. The Assessing Officer further noted that there was a specific information that the assessee

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