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)

Section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business

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)

Section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business

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

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

66,500/-, the minimum rate as per the Stamp Valuation Authority was Rs. 57,57,000/-. Thus, the actual valuation for both these plots sold was Rs. 1,16,65,000/- (Rs. 59,08,000 plus Rs. 57,57,000/-), whereas the sale consideration received as per the Sale Deed is only

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

66,500/-, the minimum rate as per the Stamp Valuation Authority was Rs. 57,57,000/-. Thus, the actual valuation for both these plots sold was Rs. 1,16,65,000/- (Rs. 59,08,000 plus Rs. 57,57,000/-), whereas the sale consideration received as per the Sale Deed is only

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

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

66,004/- out of total addition of Rs.3,53,23,000/-, on account of no tax was deducted as per section 40(a)(ia) of IT Act, in view of decision of Hon'ble High court Allahabad in the case of CIT vs Victor Shipping services Pvt. Ltd. which is a orbiter dicta as per CBDT circular no. 10/V/2013 dated

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)

66,01,000/- Sh. Mayan Agarwal 45 15,20,06,000/- Shri Vishwambhar Dayal 56 11,03,17,000/- Agarwal g). In this regard, the assessee argued before CIT(A) that, the loose sheets of papers were the computer prints out, but the same cannot be treated as evidence u/s 34 of the Evidence Act and also stated that

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)

66,01,000/- Sh. Mayan Agarwal 45 15,20,06,000/- Shri Vishwambhar Dayal 56 11,03,17,000/- Agarwal g). In this regard, the assessee argued before CIT(A) that, the loose sheets of papers were the computer prints out, but the same cannot be treated as evidence u/s 34 of the Evidence Act and also stated that

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)

66,01,000/- Sh. Mayan Agarwal 45 15,20,06,000/- Shri Vishwambhar Dayal 56 11,03,17,000/- Agarwal g). In this regard, the assessee argued before CIT(A) that, the loose sheets of papers were the computer prints out, but the same cannot be treated as evidence u/s 34 of the Evidence Act and also stated that

RAKESH PORWAL,ACHHALDA vs. ITO, AURAIYA

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

Bench: Shri Lalit Kumar & Dr. M.L. Meena

properties, and hence the A.O. adverse finding on the issue is justified and so the said investment is to be treated as unexplained investment of the appellant. The addition of Rs.9,75,000/- to the appellant’s returned income, is accordingly confirmed.” 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us. He submitted that the appellant

DEVEN CHAUDHRY,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

property, which did not materialize, and accordingly was returned to the assessee in A.Y. 2016-17. This cash was thereafter deposited in the bank account of the appellant. The statement was unambiguous and leaves no scope for alleging any inconsistency and banking thereon for making the addition. 12. While framing the assessment order, the Ld. AO has failed to bring

SUDHIR CHAUDHRY,MATHURA vs. DC/AC CIRCLE 1(3)(1),, MATHURA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

property, which did not materialize, and accordingly was returned to the assessee in A.Y. 2016-17. This cash was thereafter deposited in the bank account of the appellant. The statement was unambiguous and leaves no scope for alleging any inconsistency and banking thereon for making the addition. 12. While framing the assessment order, the Ld. AO has failed to bring