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

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 21-23 3

RADHA GUPTA,KALA MAHAL, AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1)(3), , AGRA

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2017-18

70,000, income under the head house property of Rs. 1,59,600 and interest income of Rs.6,18,636. The assessee case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The assessee has deposited SBN of Rs. 1,51,04,500 in her bank account maintained in Canara Bank having account number 0322101027093 which was nothing but the sale proceeds

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

70,000/- at Bharatpur and remaining amount of sale proceeds was Incurred in making payments due for labour engaged and material purchase for construction of new residential house at village chharora post chhatikara Distt- Mathura and thus the appellant was confident that he has no liability of any tax. 3. That the assessing officer completed the assessment u/s 144/147

FIROZABAD SHIKOHABAD,FIROZABAD vs. C.I.T.-II, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Bench, Alongwith The Annexures Mentioned Therein. The Contents Thereof Are As Follows:

70 days. ITA 55/Agra/2015 3 7. That as stated above the delay in filing of the appeal is due to fault in the office of the deponent who is the Tax Consultant of the appellant.” 4. No valid objection was taken by the Ld. DR. We are satisfied by the reasons of delay. The delay is hereby condoned

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)

3, pertaining to validity of proceedings under section 147 of the Act based on reasons recorded and therefore, if such grounds do not find favour with the view held by the Bench in such an eventually the case will be re-fixed for hearing in respect of other grounds raised in the memo of appeal to such a 8 proposal

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

House or the quantum of investment in the same is available on record, and hence excess deduction has been allowed. Not only the deduction was wrongly allowed but also no inquiry was done during the Assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Perusal of the case record further shows that the Assessee has filed the copy

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

House or the quantum of investment in the same is available on record, and hence excess deduction has been allowed. Not only the deduction was wrongly allowed but also no inquiry was done during the Assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Perusal of the case record further shows that the Assessee has filed the copy