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

house property and 16 | P a g e income from other sources. I do not find any restriction in such set off keeping in view the provisions of section

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

section 142(1) of the Act were also issued and served upon the assessee, who responded in consequence thereof. After considering the assessee’s reply dated 01.04.2021, Ld. Assessing Officer found that assessee owned three house properties, out of which one house property No. 14, Kamla Bihar Colony, Mathura was self occupied property and remaining two houses No. 4, Kailash

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

section 142(1) of the Act were also issued and served upon the assessee, who responded in consequence thereof. After considering the assessee’s reply dated 01.04.2021, Ld. Assessing Officer found that assessee owned three house properties, out of which one house property No. 14, Kamla Bihar Colony, Mathura was self occupied property and remaining two houses No. 4, Kailash

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

section 142(1) of the Act were also issued and served upon the assessee, who responded in consequence thereof. After considering the assessee’s reply dated 01.04.2021, Ld. Assessing Officer found that assessee owned three house properties, out of which one house property No. 14, Kamla Bihar Colony, Mathura was self occupied property and remaining two houses No. 4, Kailash

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

section 142(1) of the Act were also issued and served upon the assessee, who responded in consequence thereof. After considering the assessee’s reply dated 01.04.2021, Ld. Assessing Officer found that assessee owned three house properties, out of which one house property No. 14, Kamla Bihar Colony, Mathura was self occupied property and remaining two houses No. 4, Kailash

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

house. Since the assessee did not maintain regular books of account to record all the expenditure of the property so the present case is distinguishable on facts and would be no help to the assessee. 15. In the case of Indira Hospital Research & Diagnostic Centre (supra) held that: “Section 142A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Estimate by valuation officer

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

16, Kamla Vihar Colony, Mathura-281001 Sanjay Place, Agra-282002 PAN : AAWPA0864C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri M.M. Agarwal, CA Department by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 20.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 17.04.2026 ORDER PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 passed in appeal No CIT(A)-IV/KNP/10374/2013-14

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)

16 of the UPUPD Act prohibits use of any land or building in contravention of the plans. 11 Chapter VII deals in finance, accounts and audit of the authority as per the norms issued by the State Government. I may be allowed to read the whole chapter:- 12 Section 29 provides conferment of other powers on the authority after

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)

16 of the UPUPD Act prohibits use of any land or building in contravention of the plans. 11 Chapter VII deals in finance, accounts and audit of the authority as per the norms issued by the State Government. I may be allowed to read the whole chapter:- 12 Section 29 provides conferment of other powers on the authority after

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)

16 of the UPUPD Act prohibits use of any land or building in contravention of the plans. 11 Chapter VII deals in finance, accounts and audit of the authority as per the norms issued by the State Government. I may be allowed to read the whole chapter:- 12 Section 29 provides conferment of other powers on the authority after

HARI SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD-3(2), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes treated as

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

section 54 F of the I.T. Act 4. Because the judgment/order is passed without giving the proper opportunity to be heard the assessee. 5. Because no show cause notice is issued by A.O. and an exparte order was passed. 6. BECAUSE, the order appealed against is arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the facts, material on record, law and principles of natural

SH. YUGAL KISHOR AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), ETAH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

house property, Remuneration and interest from Partnership firm and income from other sources. While framing reassessment order u/s 147 read with Section 143(3) dated 24.10.2019, the Assessing Officer made two additions – firstly, disallowance of Rs.12,15,413/- claimed by the assessee as expenditure against income from other sources by invoking provision of Section

BHARTI BANSAL,AGRA vs. DCIT-1, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(3). Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the AO to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. I have observed that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s. Shakti Construction and derives business income from contract work, income from house property and income from other sources .The assessee participated in the assessment

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

property or of the unit holder, or of the shareholder as the case may be, and credit shall be given to him for the amount so ITA Nos. 195 & 196/Agr/2015 18 deducted in production of the certificate furnished under section 203 in the assessment made under this act for the assessment year for which such income is assessed. From

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

RAJ SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO-3(3), MATHURA

In the result appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri. Raj Singh, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 3(3), Village- Kharaut Chhata, Mathura Mathura. Pan: Akvpr1777Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

16 furnished replies dated 02.12.2014 in compliance to above Letter explaining that source of investment was sourced from sale of agriculture Land held and possessed by his Father. Therefore, vaguely stating that such reply was unsatisfactory, without mentioning as to how the same was unsatisfactory and in which material terms the reply was lacking only leads us to believe that

RADHA GUPTA,KALA MAHAL, AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1)(3), , AGRA

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2017-18

16,48,236 which includes income under the head salaries of Rs.8,70,000, income under the head house property of Rs. 1,59,600 and interest income of Rs.6,18,636. The assessee case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The assessee has deposited SBN of Rs. 1,51,04,500 in her bank account maintained in Canara Bank

SAPNA CHAUHAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, ETAWAH

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

16,35,500/- ... had escaped assessment for AY 2008-09 …'. This reason completely lacks logic. There is no direct co- relation between the purchase of properties by the assessee and his disclosure of the income during a particular period. The reason is vague and relies on the presumptions on the part of the Assessing Officer. He seems to be presuming