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

vi) “CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd.”, 322 ITR 158 (SC). (vii) “Uma Shankar Agarwal vs. DCIT”, ITA No. 1831 to 1835/Kol/2015. (viii) “SuvaprasananBhatacharya vs. ACIT”, ITA No. 1303/Kol/2010. (Kol). “SLK Properties vs. ITO”, ITA No. 140/PN/2014. (ix) “ACIT Panjwani” (x) vs. Deepesh M. ITA No.6330/Mum/2012 & 5878/Mum/2012. (ITAT, Mum). (xi) “CIT vs. Shri Chandrashekhran”, ITA No.61/2009 (Kar). (xii)“Sarita Milind

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

vi) “CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd.”, 322 ITR 158 (SC). (vii) “Uma Shankar Agarwal vs. DCIT”, ITA No. 1831 to 1835/Kol/2015. (viii) “Suvaprasanan Bhatacharya vs. ACIT”, ITA No. 1303/Kol/2010. (Kol). “SLK Properties vs. ITO”, ITA No. 140/PN/2014. (ix) “ACIT Panjwani” (x) vs. Deepesh M. ITA No.6330/Mum/2012 & 5878/Mum/2012. (ITAT, Mum). (xi) “CIT vs. Shri Chandrashekhran”, ITA No.61/2009 (Kar). (xii)“Sarita

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

vi)Manoj Kumar & Sharmila Agarwal, Morena ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 19 9. That during the course of search and seizure action as aforesaid the Authorized Officers had recorded the statements of the members of the above named AOPs, under section 132(4) of the Act. 10. That in their statements, recorded under section 132(4), they had stated that

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

vi)Manoj Kumar & Sharmila Agarwal, Morena ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 19 9. That during the course of search and seizure action as aforesaid the Authorized Officers had recorded the statements of the members of the above named AOPs, under section 132(4) of the Act. 10. That in their statements, recorded under section 132(4), they had stated that

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

vi)Manoj Kumar & Sharmila Agarwal, Morena ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 19 9. That during the course of search and seizure action as aforesaid the Authorized Officers had recorded the statements of the members of the above named AOPs, under section 132(4) of the Act. 10. That in their statements, recorded under section 132(4), they had stated that

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

vi)Manoj Kumar & Sharmila Agarwal, Morena ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 19 9. That during the course of search and seizure action as aforesaid the Authorized Officers had recorded the statements of the members of the above named AOPs, under section 132(4) of the Act. 10. That in their statements, recorded under section 132(4), they had stated that

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

vi)Manoj Kumar & Sharmila Agarwal, Morena ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 19 9. That during the course of search and seizure action as aforesaid the Authorized Officers had recorded the statements of the members of the above named AOPs, under section 132(4) of the Act. 10. That in their statements, recorded under section 132(4), they had stated that

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)

9,236/- 2.2 The return was subsequently revised on 31.12.2024 within the time allowed under section 139(5), to correct certain omissions in the capital gain schedule. In the revised return, the assessee exercised the option under section 115BAC(1A), i.e., to be governed by the default new tax regime applicable from A.Y. 2024-25 as amended by the Finance

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

9) Regarding the applicability of the substituted clause for the impugned assessment years, it is stated that in the case of Bhooratnam & Co. (2-13) 357 ITR 396 (AP) that, "Rule 37BA is a procedural provision dealing with the manner of giving credit for tax deducted at source for the purposes of section 199." It should be appreciated that where

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

disallowances made on estimate basis do not warrant any penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In support, he has relied upon following decisions of various High Courts and ITAT : (i). M/s. Toshiba Water Solutions (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT 2025(9) TMI 511(ITAT Delhi – order dated 29.08.2025) (ii). M/s. Vijay Power Generators

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

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

disallowance is not agreed. The assessee is not required to file Form 10AC as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 6. Thereafter, intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 21-03-2023 was issued accepting the declared nil income. Subsequently, the Learned CPC suo moto without issuing any notice to the Assessee issued rectification order

SMT. GARIMA MEHTA,GWALIOR vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(2), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

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

disallowed the assessee’s claim u/s 10A on the basis that the 21. assessee did not fulfill the conditions contained in section 10A. It was observed that the business premises of the assessee was not situated either in a Software Technology Park, or in a Special Category Zone, as required by the provisions of section 10A(1) (A); that

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

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

vi) That, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.57,68,605/-, on account of under section 69A of the IT Act, without appreciating the fact of the case that amount of Rs 57.68,605/- debited by the bank but not found recorded in the books of account of the assessee. (vii) That

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

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

disallowance of depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against the above said assessment order dated 31.03.2016, learned CIT(A) vide order dated 25.06.2025 affirmed the rejection of accounts and sustained the addition made by AO on account of low profit rate. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal in ITA No.342/Agr/2025 before the ITAT, which has been partly allowed

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

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

disallowance of depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against the above said assessment order dated 31.03.2016, learned CIT(A) vide order dated 25.06.2025 affirmed the rejection of accounts and sustained the addition made by AO on account of low profit rate. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal in ITA No.342/Agr/2025 before the ITAT, which has been partly allowed