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

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

1) Any deduction made in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this chapter and paid to the credit of the central government shall be treated as a payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income the deduction was made, or the owner of the security, or of the depositor or of the owner of the property

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

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

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

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 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

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

66 M2”. The ld Counsel for the ITA 47 to 52/Agra/2017 7 assessee submitted that the DVO has no evidence in support of his claim in the Valuation Report that when the residential house, which was purchased by the assessee bears ‘Ordinary Construction’ and after its purchase thorough addition and alteration work was done by the assessee, and even internal

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

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

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

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

1 231630 as against the alternative income of ₹ 2 56630. The AO wide passing this exporting assessment order, has treated the assessee is investment in purchase of two plots and in construction of the guesthouse as unexplained income from other sources. Thus, in addition of ₹ 9 75000 has been made by the AO to the assessee returned income. The aggrieved