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

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

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 of paper book) and sale bills (page no. 74

HARI OM AGARWAL,KOLARAS vs. ITO SHIVPURI, ASHOK NAGAR

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowance is called for being , books of accounts maintained by the assessee are duly accepted, provisions of Section 145(3) are not invoked. The addition made by the AO , sustained by the National Faceless Appeal Centre is liable to be deleted.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the impugned assessment year

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

PEHAL,CHHATARPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), GWALIOR

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

Bench: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR (Accountant Member)

disallowed. Assessee did not comply with the notice(s), which led to denial of deduction u/s. 11 of the Act by the Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs.5,83,244/- claimed by the assessee vide re-assessment order dated 27.03.2015 framed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 144/147 of the 1961 Act. 5. Assessee filed first appeal with

SHRI BALWANT SINGH PUBLIC SCHOOL SAMITI,HATHRAS vs. ITO WARD 4(3)(4), HATHRAS, HATHRAS

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhshri Balwant Singh Vs. Ito, Public School Samiti, Ward-4(2)(4), Sikandra Rao Road, Hathras Salempur, Sasni, Hathras, (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaajs4970P Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Garh, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2026

74,05,110/- made by CPC, which is the amount of gross receipt, thereby disallowing the entire revenue expenses. 6. That the assesse craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any or all the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available

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

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

74,196/-, on account of payment made and no tax was deducted as per Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act, as per decision of H'onble High court Allahabad in the case of CIT vs Victor Shipping services Pvt Ltd which is a orbiter dicta as per CBDT circular no. 10/V/2013 dated 16.12.2013. (xviii) That

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

74,30,030/- profit @ 7.3% =Rs. 3,26.62.392/- Work done by self Rs. 3,75,06,680/- Rs. 84,53,859/- Less: salary and interest paid to partners Rs. 2,90,52,820/- Total income 13. On perusal of the computation of original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, as above, we find that there

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 SATYAM SOLUTIONS LTD,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT1(1), , GWALIOR

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

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

disallowance of employees’ contribution towards Provident Fund (PF) and Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) was covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). Subsequently, the assessee filed an application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking recall of the said order dated

MOHD NAYEEM,JHANSI vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(5), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee including additional ground are remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21 Mohd Nayeem Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 74, Sadar Bazar Ward 2(3)(5), Jhanshi Jhansi Pan : Acfpn3382F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Nitin Goyal, Advocate & Sh. Amit Goyal, Advocate Department By Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per : S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assessee Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Of Learned Cit(Appeals) -2, Chennai Dated 05.12.2024 U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2020- 21. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice, Brief Facts Of The Case Relating To The Issues Are, Ld. Ar Submitted That The Assessee In Summary Assessment U/S 143(1) Of The Act Based On The Audit Report Disallowed The Amount Wherein The Auditor Has Declared In Form No. 3Cd That There Is Outstanding Payment Due Of Rs. 81,08,561/- To Gst, Based On The Above Audit Report,Cpc Has Disallowed The Above Said Outstanding U/S 43B Of The Act.

74, Sadar Bazar Ward 2(3)(5), Jhanshi Jhansi PAN : ACFPN3382F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Nitin Goyal, Advocate & Sh. Amit Goyal, Advocate Department by Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 16.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 18.02.2026 ORDER PER : S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee has preferred this appeal against the order of learned CIT(Appeals) -2, Chennai

AMBRISH SARIN,AGRA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

disallowed I.T.A No. 372/Agra/2018 8 that particular expense. But, that by itself could not be a ground for rejection of accounts as a whole u/s 145(3) of the Act.” 10. The ld. DR. supported the impugned order. 11. We have heard both the sides, perused the material on records and the judgments relied upon. We agree with the argument

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is partly

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

section 145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without identifying OR pointing out any specific defect OR inconsistency in the books of account maintained by the appellant in the regular course of business. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that transactions undertaken

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

MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 56 of the Income Tax Act, hence AO is correct in law in treating it as "Income from other sources." This ground of the assessee is therefore dismissed. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued before us at length with the support of detailed paper book and synopsis which are placed on record. He submitted that the judgement relied

MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 56 of the Income Tax Act, hence AO is correct in law in treating it as "Income from other sources." This ground of the assessee is therefore dismissed. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued before us at length with the support of detailed paper book and synopsis which are placed on record. He submitted that the judgement relied