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)

22. The appellant has no where disputed that the claim u/s 11 cannot be examined during the subsistence of registration u/s 12A. Only the objects cannot be examined by the Assessing Officer during the subsistence of registration u/s 12A as the same is not within his domain. Entire receipts are in accordance with the provisions of which exemption under section

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)

22. The appellant has no where disputed that the claim u/s 11 cannot be examined during the subsistence of registration u/s 12A. Only the objects cannot be examined by the Assessing Officer during the subsistence of registration u/s 12A as the same is not within his domain. Entire receipts are in accordance with the provisions of which exemption under section

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, Agra PAN No. – AAALA0081F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Deepak Singh, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Sunil Bajpai, CIT DR & Sh. Mazhar Akram, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 08.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement 17.05.2021 ORDER Per LALIET KUMAR J.M. ITA No.216/Agr/2016, 183/Agr/2014,439/Agr/2015 & ITA No. 177/Agr/2014 2 S. NO 1 GROUNDS OF APPEALS 2-20 2 BACK GROUND FACTS

ANIL KUMAR GOYAL HUF,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD-5(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

22,000/- having stamp value of Rs.1,15,00,000/-. As per provisions of section 54 of the Act, to avail benefit of this section, the appellant has to have the residential house constructed within a period of three years from the date of transfer which in the assessee's case falls on 15.04.2014. However, as observed, the appellant though

SAPNA CHAUHAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, ETAWAH

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

house was quashed. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court: “Reassessment Reasons to believe fishing enquiry impugned notice clearly indicates that the ld. AO merely wanted to know the details of sources of funds invested by the assessee in purchasing a flat ld. AO had no basis to reasonably entertain a belief that any part of income

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

22) So far the challenge of the order on merit is concerned, I rely on my aforesaid submission made on the basis of provisions of section 199 and also the ruling given in the various decisions that if the income is assessed in the hands of the assessee, the assessee must be entitled for the credit of the tax deducted

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)

2(a) of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, notice under section 148 is being issued.” 23. Based on the above reproduced Reasons challenge was made by the assessee regarding the validity of re-opening. The ITAT while quashing notice under section 148 held as under: “From the above provisions, it is clear that the Assessing Officer must have

ACIT-CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. PUNEET AGARWAL, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

House No.15 and out of which, cash of Rs. 42 lacs was seized. During the course of search at the residential premises on 15.10.2014, the assessee had stated that cash, as found, from the residence to the tune of Rs. 45.81 lacs was of different companies, in which, there is substantial cash in hand in the books of accounts

VISHWAMBHAR DAYAL AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

House No.15 and out of which, cash of Rs. 42 lacs was seized. During the course of search at the residential premises on 15.10.2014, the assessee had stated that cash, as found, from the residence to the tune of Rs. 45.81 lacs was of different companies, in which, there is substantial cash in hand in the books of accounts

ACIT-CIRCEL-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. MAYANK AGRAWAL, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

House No.15 and out of which, cash of Rs. 42 lacs was seized. During the course of search at the residential premises on 15.10.2014, the assessee had stated that cash, as found, from the residence to the tune of Rs. 45.81 lacs was of different companies, in which, there is substantial cash in hand in the books of accounts

SMT. SARIKA SRIVASTAVA,AGRA vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

22,50,100/- plus Rs. 31.66,500/-). Thus, the value of the 2 plots sold by the Assessee as co-owner u/s 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounts to Rs. 1,16,65,000/-, but the sale consideration received has been disclosed at only Rs. 54,16,600/- by the 2 co-owners i.e. Dr. Sarika Srivastava

SHRI ATUL SRIVASTAVA,AGRA vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

22,50,100/- plus Rs. 31.66,500/-). Thus, the value of the 2 plots sold by the Assessee as co-owner u/s 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounts to Rs. 1,16,65,000/-, but the sale consideration received has been disclosed at only Rs. 54,16,600/- by the 2 co-owners i.e. Dr. Sarika Srivastava

SHRI RAJ KUMAR MITTAL,FIROZABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

22,500/- towards incidental expenses, aggregating to Rs. 62,32,500/-(APB, Pages,44-71).During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO referred the property for purpose of valuation to the DVO, who estimated the investment at Rs. 1,57,97,400/- as against Rs.62,32,500/-shown by the appellant. The AO, accordingly, worked out the difference

AGRA INFRALAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AGRA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE RANGE CENTRAL, AGRA

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.141/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.142/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.143/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.144/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2017-18) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.145/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.146/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2019-20) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.147/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.148/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2017-18) & 9. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.149/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) & 10. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.150/Agr/2023

22,00,000/- treating the alleged money, received in cash by the assessee in lieu of the sale of shops. While sustaining the addition, the CIT Appeals has completely ignored the explanations filed before AO that no such amount has been taken by the assessee as an on money, in absence of any corroborated evidence in support of above addition

AGRA INFRALAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AGRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.141/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.142/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.143/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.144/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2017-18) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.145/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.146/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2019-20) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.147/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.148/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2017-18) & 9. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.149/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) & 10. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.150/Agr/2023

22,00,000/- treating the alleged money, received in cash by the assessee in lieu of the sale of shops. While sustaining the addition, the CIT Appeals has completely ignored the explanations filed before AO that no such amount has been taken by the assessee as an on money, in absence of any corroborated evidence in support of above addition

AGRA INFRALAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AGRA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, RANGE CIRCLE, AGRA

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.141/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.142/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.143/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.144/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2017-18) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.145/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.146/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2019-20) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.147/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.148/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2017-18) & 9. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.149/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) & 10. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.150/Agr/2023

22,00,000/- treating the alleged money, received in cash by the assessee in lieu of the sale of shops. While sustaining the addition, the CIT Appeals has completely ignored the explanations filed before AO that no such amount has been taken by the assessee as an on money, in absence of any corroborated evidence in support of above addition

AGRA INFRALAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.141/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.142/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.143/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.144/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2017-18) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.145/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.146/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2019-20) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.147/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.148/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2017-18) & 9. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.149/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) & 10. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.150/Agr/2023

22,00,000/- treating the alleged money, received in cash by the assessee in lieu of the sale of shops. While sustaining the addition, the CIT Appeals has completely ignored the explanations filed before AO that no such amount has been taken by the assessee as an on money, in absence of any corroborated evidence in support of above addition

AGRA INFRALAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE AGRA, AGRA

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.141/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.142/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.143/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.144/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2017-18) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.145/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.146/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2019-20) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.147/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.148/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2017-18) & 9. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.149/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) & 10. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.150/Agr/2023

22,00,000/- treating the alleged money, received in cash by the assessee in lieu of the sale of shops. While sustaining the addition, the CIT Appeals has completely ignored the explanations filed before AO that no such amount has been taken by the assessee as an on money, in absence of any corroborated evidence in support of above addition