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)

section 2(15) of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) having admitted that it is his (special auditor) opinion over the issue, has decided to adjudicate after examining the Act and various decision as discussed by the Ld. CIT(A). It is again submitted that neither the statute nor the decisions relied upon by Ld CIT(A), no where

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

The appeals of the department are dismissed

2, the revenue objected the deletion by the CIT (Appeals) of the Rs.39,12,696/- made by the AO under the head “Income from House Property”. 4.1 During assessment proceedings the AO noted that assessee’s property at Kanwal Complex, City Centre, Gwalior was let out to two tanents namely Axis Bank and M/s Tanushaka Automobiles Pvt Ltd. (TAPL

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

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

2) and 142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings. The assesseehas declared income from house property, income from other sources and loss from business or profession, in the return of income filed with the Revenue. The assessee has shown loss of Rs.10,06,265/- from business or profession, which

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

50,000/- plus Stamp Duty of Rs.81,060/-) pertaining to purchase of first new residential house property No. 19/180, Tila Ammeri Khan, Ghati Mamu Bhanja, Agra, treating it as a new residential house property, but disallowed the balance claim of Rs.28,04,546/- made by the assessee with respect to purchase of second new property No. 19/1, situated at Tila

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

section 54F of the IT Act, in spite of the facts on records that the assessee has failed to produce proof of construction on land, during the course of assessment proceedings before the A.O.” 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in deleting

SANJAY CHOBEY,JHANSI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Acit, Circle –2(3)( 1), Dr. Sanjay Chobey, (Huf) Opp. Ware House, Shivpuri Aayakar Bhawan, Road, Nandpura, Jhansi 1090, Civil Lines, Pan : Aahhd7844 Q Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent)

House, Shivpuri Aayakar Bhawan, Road, Nandpura, Jhansi 1090, Civil Lines, PAN : AAHHD7844 Q Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri P.K. Sahgal, Advocate And Shri Utsav Sahgal, C.A. Respondent by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement 02.07.2018 ORDER Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order

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

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-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

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

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

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

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

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs. 2,50

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs. 2,50

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs. 2,50

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs. 2,50

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs. 2,50

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs. 2,50