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 A K TRANSPORT AGENCY,FARRUKHABAD vs. CIT APPEAL, ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 154 of the Act. 7. The assessee filed an appeal with CIT (Appeals) Aligarh on 25.05.2015 against the order of the Ld. A.O. wherein the income was assessed at Rs. 39,96,550/-. The Ld. CIT upheld the order and confirmed the disallowance

ANKITA PALIWAL,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALIGARH

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

section 139(1) of the IT Act, 1961, and in our view not allowing foreign tax credit by AO (CPC) was nothing, but a mistake apparent on record. Therefore, we direct the revenue to allow the claim of the assessee. In the case of Vikash Daga vs. ACIT (supra), held as under:- “8. We have given a thoughtful consideration

MONIKA RATHORE,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, MORENA

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2023-24

96,395/- earned from Google Germany. The Revenue has not allowed the claim of deduction towards foreign tax credit u/s. 90 of the Act on the ground that Form-67 was not filed on or before the due date of filing of return of income as prescribed u/s 139(1), by relying on Rule

RAMKISHAN,ALIGARH vs. ITO 4(1)(3) ALIGARH, ALIGARH

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

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

section 147 of the Act. The information with the Assessing Officer was that the assessee had sold an immovable property to Sangwan Landco Pvt. Ltd. for a sale consideration of Rs.89,20,000/-. In response to to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, the assessee in his reply dated 02.12.2022 stated that the immovable property sold was an agricultural

SURBHI ANAND,SOUTH DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2023-24] Surbhi Anand, Acit, C-155, Basement, Lajpat Circle-1(1)(1), Nagar-2, South Delhi, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Sanjay Place, Delhi-110024 Agra, Uttar Pradesh-282002 Pan-Acypa6580B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sahib P. Satsangi, Ca Respondent By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 Order, Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

96,000 in the impugned year The Id. CPC processed the return under section 143(1) on the returned income but disallowed

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

disallowance of Rs. 34,38,533/ made by the Ld. Assessing Officer even when the entire amount of interest expense on unsecured loans was allowable as deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 since the unsecured loans were utilized for making investment in the partnership firm from where income in the form of interest

DY C.I.T.-3, MATHURA vs. M/S KOSHDA BUILDCON PVT. LTD., MATHURA

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed for

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

disallowed by the A.O., as much as Rs.1,96,82,204/- have already been capitalized by the appellant in its books of account, and another Rs. 13,23,232/-, being depreciation expenses, have been added back by the appellant while computing its income chargeable to tax and claimed under the provisions of section

MR. TASAVVER HUSAIN,FARRUKHABAD vs. ACIT , FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section, shall not include the following, namely:— (a) the amount of income in respect of which the assessee offers an explanation and the Assessing Officer or 96[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be, is satisfied that the explanation is bona fide and the assessee has disclosed

MR. TASAVVER HUSAIN,FARRUKHABAD vs. ACIT, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section, shall not include the following, namely:— (a) the amount of income in respect of which the assessee offers an explanation and the Assessing Officer or 96[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be, is satisfied that the explanation is bona fide and the assessee has disclosed

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)

section 234B of the Act as the Income of the assessee is subjected to TDS.” 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of Civil Contractor and work of road construction under government departments. Return of income was e-filed on 24.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs. 17,96,170/- and the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. However

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

96,44,450/- Total turnover Less: work done through Rs. 24,22,14,420/-profit @ 2% =Rs. 48,44,288/- Subcontractor Rs. 44,74,30,030/- 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

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

M/S. KEHETRIYA KISAN GRAMIN BANK , MAINPURI vs. DCIT AO CIRCLE-4(2), FARUKHABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 36 (viia) on the basis of advances given by the rural I.T.A No. 382/Agra/2017 3 branches. The AO restricted the deduction to 7.5% of the total provisions of debt and doubtful debt. Thus, only an amount of Rs. 1,11,225/- was allowed and the remaining deduction was added back. Thus, the assessment was completed at total income

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

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

Section 10(23C) on the requirement that a college must maintain the status- quo, as it were, in regard to its knowledge based infrastructure. Nor for that matter is an educational institution prohibited from upgrading its infrastructure on educational facilities save on the pain of losing the benefit of the exemption under Section 10(23C). Imposing such a condition which

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

Disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act claimed for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 4,99,59,467 on sale of shares are hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal are allowed." 26. It was submitted that on the basis of the above that once the submission has been accepted by the Settlement Commission then

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

Disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act claimed for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 4,99,59,467 on sale of shares are hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal are allowed." 26. It was submitted that on the basis of the above that once the submission has been accepted by the Settlement Commission then