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

54 F and the house is under construction, the exemption u/s. 54F be allowed as claimed in the return of income of Rs.99,95,501/-.” 3. Feeling aggrieved by the decision given by the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal on ground No. 1 mentioned hereinabove. 4. It was the case of the ld. DR DR that

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

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

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

1,06,22,000/- 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

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

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)

54 of the Paper book. Ld CIT(A) has endorsed the finding at Page 83 of the appellate order relying on the case of Moradabad Development Authority 15 taxmann.com 389. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that above order related to the A.Y. 2007-08 when provisions of section 2(15) were not existing. It is however submitted that

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)

54 of the Paper book. Ld CIT(A) has endorsed the finding at Page 83 of the appellate order relying on the case of Moradabad Development Authority 15 taxmann.com 389. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that above order related to the A.Y. 2007-08 when provisions of section 2(15) were not existing. It is however submitted that

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)

54 of the Paper book. Ld CIT(A) has endorsed the finding at Page 83 of the appellate order relying on the case of Moradabad Development Authority 15 taxmann.com 389. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that above order related to the A.Y. 2007-08 when provisions of section 2(15) were not existing. It is however submitted that

SAPNA CHAUHAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, ETAWAH

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

1,54,680/- and she had deposited premium of insurance policies amounting to Rs. 2,74,518/- therefore, escapement of income is proved. This also cannot be valid ground for arriving at the satisfaction for escapement of income. 16. This reasoning adopted by the learned Assessing officer for arriving at the ‘satisfaction’ for escapement of income is based

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

property after allowing the corresponding deduction u/s 54B of the Act for investment in agricultural land as per law. 4. That the assessee is agriculturist having only source of income from agriculture (APB, page 1). The ld. AR further submitted as follows: “1. That assessee is an agriculturist having only source of income from agricultural Farming. During the year under

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

section 69C for unaccounted investment of the assessee of construction of the house property which was not disclosed by her in the return of income. 8. That the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the proceeding initiated u/s 142(1) of the Act in consequence to action taken u/s 153C of the Act in earlier year is wrong

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

Section 50C, the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority was deemed to be the full value of the consideration received as a result of the transfer and thus, the difference of Rs. 62,48,400/- (Rs. 1,16,65,000/- less Rs. 54,16,600/-) was to be brought to tax. Half share of the Assessee as co-owner

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

Section 50C, the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority was deemed to be the full value of the consideration received as a result of the transfer and thus, the difference of Rs. 62,48,400/- (Rs. 1,16,65,000/- less Rs. 54,16,600/-) was to be brought to tax. Half share of the Assessee as co-owner

LATA SHARMA,AGRA vs. CIT (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

House No.1121, Ward-2(1)(2), Bassachalu, Tarrakpu Poiya, Vs Agra Agra, Uttar Pradesh-283126 PAN-IBZPS9821M Appellant Respondent Appellant by Shri Gagan Bahgel, Adv. Respondent by Shri Shailender Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.04.2025 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM, This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order dated

MOHD ARIF,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), ETWAH, ETAWAH

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Mohd. Arif, Income Tax Officer, 68, Huiganj Pachraha, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Income Tax Office, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-206001 Vs Civil Lines, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-207001 Pan-Anapa8542J Appellant Respondent

1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also show-caused to make another addition of Rs.97,14,000/- by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) on the ground that the stamp value of the property shown to have been purchased for Rs.15 lakhs on the date of purchase was Rs.1,12,14,000/-. The assessee submitted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-V, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to verify the investment of Rs. 89,79,185/- out of total addition of Rs.99,56,944/- made u/s 69B of the Act on account of unexplained investment in factory building at Kota