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)

disallowance when the payments for the same were made through regular banking channels. It was also submitted that these persons are not under the control of the Assessee firm. Further, the Assessee also submitted one more letter dated 5-3-2020 before the ld CITA. The ld CITA again sought for a remand report from the ld AO in respect

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),AGRA, AGRA vs. EMCO EXPORTS, AGRA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

90, 91 as well as the provisions of DTAA are also relevant, while applying tax deduction at source provisions. Reference to ITO(TDS) under Section 195(2) or 195(3) either by the non-resident or by the resident payer is to avoid any future hassles for both resident as well as non-resident. In our view, Sections

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

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

disallowed and the addition made is sustained. The remaining component of finance charges being interest on fixed deposit to public is not covered under section 43B. Hence, the assessee gets a relief of Rs 13,90

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

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

Disallowance of Rs, 19,90,604/- on account of sundry creditors. The A.O. has made addition Rs.19,90,604/- on the ground that the assessee has not furnished copy of account of sundry creditors and complete address and confirmation. Your honours kind attention is drawn to the written submissions made before the A.O. vide letter dated 03.02.2014 (copy enclosed) whereby

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

The appeals of the department are dismissed

90 & 91) and according to which as per computation sheet (APB/91) it is fixed at an Annual Value of Rs. 7,22,640/- only while the actual total rent received from the property is Rs.20,25,200/- . He further drew out attention to rent agreement with Tanushaka Automobiles Pvt Ltd. (APB / 94-97) and Lease agreement with Axis Bank

SATISH PRAKASH AGARWAL,AGRA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17

disallowed in the hands of the partnership firm(Section 40(b)(iv)). The assessee has charged interest @ 12% from the said partnership firm. It is also observed that the assessee has incurred interest expenditure of Rs.50,83,665/-, which is sought to be adjusted under and head profits and gains from business or profession. Said expenses of Rs.50

DINESH CHANDRA DUTTA,ALIGARH vs. CIT A, ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2015-16

90,000/- in another flat in Desire Residency, Khasra No. 520, Mohiuddinpur, Kanawani, Noida. The Assessing Officer observed that deduction u/s. 54 could be allowed only in respect of one flat. 3. The assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who sustained the disallowance on the premise that the legal position has changed w.e.f. 01.04.2015 and in section

M/S BHOLE BABA MILK FOOD INDUSTRIES DHOLPUR,AGRA vs. J.C.I.T., RANGE -4, AGRA

In the result appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because it was part of profit earned from Dholpur Unit and was not liable to be disallowed for the purpose of calculating the deduction u/s 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. It may further be submitted that the assessee company had purchased the aforesaid items of the goods from other

RANJANA CHATURVEDI,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalito-1(3)(1), Ranjna Chaturvedi Ayakar Bhawan, 9A, T Point, Behind Back Vs. Radhika Vihar, Gate Skjs, Govind Nagar, Phase-Ii, Mathura-281001 (U.P.) Mathura-281004 (U.P.) Pan-Afopc4950N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M.M. Agarwal, Ca Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

disallowance of Rs.115,296 towards interest ignoring that appellate had sufficient interest free funds for withdrawal of Rs.10,00,000. 3. Because in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned appellate authority has erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,90,000 towards cash deposited in saving bank account during demonetization period under section

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(lll) of the Income tax Act and may allowed." 2. The facts are that addition of Rs.11,69,841/- was made by the AO out of interest paid

M/S SHIVHARE ROADLINES,GWALIOR vs. JT. C.I.T., RANGE-2, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

90,253/- and that out of 12 I.T.A No.313/Agra/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 this so payable amount, an amount of Rs.37,19,883/- was not deposited before the due date of filing of return which was disallowed by the Ld. AO u/s 43B of the act. The Ld. A.R. has submitted provision of section

SMT ARCHANA DUTTA,MATHURA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Archana Dutta, Prop. M/S Vs..Acit,Circle-3, Dutta & Dutta Construction, Co., Mathura. 77E Dutta & Dutta Construction, Govind Nagar, Mathura. Panno.Afxpd7557B (Assessee) (Revenue)

disallowance of Rs. 6,00,000/- on account of unexplained capital introduction and addition of Rs. 9,157/- under section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Apropos Ground Nos. 1 to 3, the AO has made this addition, observing as the following:- “The assessee created as situation where by the assessment u/s 144 to the best

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

section 69 are attracted only when the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account. In the present case, as rightly contended, no actual investment stands proved by either of the Authorities below as having been made by the assessee. In this regard, in ‘Ashok Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT’, 59 Taxman

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

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 was no reference made regarding the other income earned by the assessee on account of interest on FDR’s either in the notices issued by the AO or the compliance and written