POONAM SAXENA,ALIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 4(1)(5), ALIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

house property, business income in the shape of teaching tuitions to students and interest income during the year under consideration. c) The assessee had received rental income of Rs. 57,000/- in cash and Tuition income of Rs.1,94,400/- in cash which was shown in her ITR. While explaining the cash deposit of Rs. 2,95,000/- was made

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)

83,751/- which is not at all the receipt from the alleged commercial activities. The authorities below failed to appreciate various authoritative judicial pronouncements in this regard. 8. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in holding the revenue expenditure of Rs 4,84,000/- as capital expenditure. The authorities below failed to appreciate

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)

83,751/- which is not at all the receipt from the alleged commercial activities. The authorities below failed to appreciate various authoritative judicial pronouncements in this regard. 8. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in holding the revenue expenditure of Rs 4,84,000/- as capital expenditure. The authorities below failed to appreciate

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)

83,751/- which is not at all the receipt from the alleged commercial activities. The authorities below failed to appreciate various authoritative judicial pronouncements in this regard. 8. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in holding the revenue expenditure of Rs 4,84,000/- as capital expenditure. The authorities below failed to appreciate

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

SAPNA CHAUHAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, ETAWAH

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

83 of 2014 – Allahabad High Court 9. M/s Ginni Filaments Vs. CIT Writ Tax No. 1402 of 2014- Allahabad HC 10. DGIT Vs. M/s. Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 4394 of 2015 – Supreme Court 11. Paramount Communication ltd. vs. CIT Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 16930 of 2017 5. We have considered rival submissions, material

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

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

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

Section 10(23C) on the requirement that a college must maintain the status- quo, as it were, in regard to its knowledge based infrastructure. Nor for that matter is an educational institution prohibited from upgrading its infrastructure on educational facilities save on the pain of losing the benefit of the exemption under Section 10(23C). Imposing such a condition which

SH. SACHIN ARORA,MATHURA vs. I.T.O.-3(4), MATHURA

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

83 & 84/Agra/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEARs-1999-00 & 2000-01) Late (Smt.) Shanta Balani, Through Vs..ITO-2(4), L/H Ramesh Chand Balani Agra. B-66, Alok Nagar, Jaipur House, Agra. PAN No.ABTPB4266B (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by Shri Anurag Sinha, AR. Revenue by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR. Date of Hearing 14.11.2017 I.T.A No. 171/Agra/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) Smt. Shakuntla Devi, Prop

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

MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

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

MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

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

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

MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

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

MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

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

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