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)

5,&6). The Ld CIT(A) has again relied upon the comments of special auditor on Point no. 3 at page 51 of the Paper Book. Despite the objections by the assessee that the special auditor has no legal authority to decide the application of section 2(15) of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) having admitted that

FIROZABAD SHIKOHABAD,FIROZABAD vs. C.I.T.-II, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Bench, Alongwith The Annexures Mentioned Therein. The Contents Thereof Are As Follows:

house for Marriage Anniversary) on that date. And the office clerk of the deponent Mr Rahul Sharma mixed-up the appeal documents with other papers in the office as the filing of Income Tax returns was also in the process in the office of deponent. 5. That after some time when the Mr. Ravinder Kumar Mathad Secretary of appellant Authority

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

The appeals of the department are dismissed

11 registered nor a beneficial shareholder of the lender companies, the loan/advance received by the assessee company from these group companies could be taxed in its hand as “deemed dividend” within the provisions of section 2(22)(e). 3.6.1 The provisions of section 2(22)(e) came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case

ALAUDDIN,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16

5- Because upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case the Notice issued under section 148 and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) are invalid and bad in law and are in gross violation of provisions of section 151A of the Income Tax Act. 6-BECAUSE, upon the facts

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

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

house tax and water tax were neither paid in that year nor upto the filing of the return. (xv) That, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts by deleting the addition of Rs. 11,65,845/- out of the total addition of Rs.17,57,752/- ,on account of expenses not verified by original biils/vouchers ,without appreciating the fact

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

11 lenders out of which only 5 lenders responded to the enquiries made by the AO. The AO based on the analysis of the enquiry observed that the creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of the interest could not be proved. The observations of the AO are recorded in the assessment order. The assessee even did not furnish the copy

BIPIN BABU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

house property is not based on the incriminating material found during the search proceedings. Learned CIT(Appeals) has ignored the referred apex court judgment dated 24.04.2023, passed in Civil Appeal No. 6580/2021, Principal CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. Prayed to allow the appeal. 8. Learned CIT(DR) has submitted that the assessee has not filed any appeal against

BIPIN BAU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

house property is not based on the incriminating material found during the search proceedings. Learned CIT(Appeals) has ignored the referred apex court judgment dated 24.04.2023, passed in Civil Appeal No. 6580/2021, Principal CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. Prayed to allow the appeal. 8. Learned CIT(DR) has submitted that the assessee has not filed any appeal against

BIPIN BABU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

house property is not based on the incriminating material found during the search proceedings. Learned CIT(Appeals) has ignored the referred apex court judgment dated 24.04.2023, passed in Civil Appeal No. 6580/2021, Principal CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. Prayed to allow the appeal. 8. Learned CIT(DR) has submitted that the assessee has not filed any appeal against

BIPIN BABU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

house property is not based on the incriminating material found during the search proceedings. Learned CIT(Appeals) has ignored the referred apex court judgment dated 24.04.2023, passed in Civil Appeal No. 6580/2021, Principal CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. Prayed to allow the appeal. 8. Learned CIT(DR) has submitted that the assessee has not filed any appeal against

SMT. BINA WADHWA,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2010-11

5 the Assessing Officer by way of speaking order on 18.09.2012. In view thereof, the objections which were raised by the assessee once disposed of, the assessee was not required to improve upon the objections on the grounds before us. In this regard, as the assessee has not seriously challenged this issue, we do not widh to adjudicate the same

ITO 1(2), GWALIOR vs. SMT REENA AGRAWAL, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13

5. Per contra, the ld.AR had submitted that before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has submitted that the assessee had constructed the residential house within the period of three years and in support of that the assessee had filed construction agreement entered between the assessee and the contractor. It was also the case of the assessee had earned Rs.14

BIPIN BABU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

11,00,000 comprising of unexplained investment in house property. 2. Because, while sustaining the penalty, learned 'CIT (Appeals)' has erred in not appreciating that the 'appellant' had tendered explanation during penalty proceedings as well as during appellate proceedings and such explanation has 2 | P a g e neither been found or held as 'no explanation' or 'false

SMT. NISHA KESHWANI,AGRA vs. DY. C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

5. The ld. CIT(A) further noted that the second valuation report of the DVO was not accepted by the AO without assigning any reason as to why he preferred the valuation report made on the basis of plinth area rate as not reasonable than the report I.T.A No.199/Agra/2013 7 made on the basis of detailed item wise rate method

SHYAM SINGH YADAV,GWALIOR vs. ITO 2(2), GWL, GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shyam Singh Yadav, Vs. Ito, Opp. Doordarshan Kendra, Ward-2(2), Thatipur Gaon, Morar, Gwalior, Mp Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abhpy8702B Assessee By : Shri S. C. Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shalenndra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/02/2025

5 That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the addition of Rs. 17,78,091/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under the head "Income from House Property". The addition was made without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 6 That the AO incorrectly computed the income from house property

AKASH GOYAL,AGRA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

property. Hence, it can be easily observed that the claim of interest of Rs.14,46,688/- out of the total claim of deduction of Rs. 49,38,149/- that was in relation to the loan from India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd., cannot be allowed as deduction under section 57(iii) because its intent, purpose and use was not to earn

ASHOK SAHU,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(1), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

House of Parliament] and formulated a Scheme called "the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022" (herein after „the Scheme‟). And that the Scheme provides that (a) the assessment, reassessment or re-computation u/s.147 of the Act and (b) the issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act shall be through automated allocation, in accordance with risk management strategy formulated

SUNITA,SAHU vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

House of Parliament] and formulated a Scheme called "the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022" (herein after „the Scheme‟). And that the Scheme provides that (a) the assessment, reassessment or re-computation u/s.147 of the Act and (b) the issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act shall be through automated allocation, in accordance with risk management strategy formulated