SHRI OM PRAKASH SINGH,MATHURA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, AGRA

In the result appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

depreciation and interest paid. Thus, ground of appeal No.1 to 4 is partly allowed. 11. Vide Ground of Appeal No. 5, assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining addition of Rs.3,00,00,000/- under section 68

HARSH SALUJA,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

68 of the I.T. Act of aggregate cash deposit of Rs. 12,97,291/- (3,30,471 + 9,66,820) in Union Bank of India SB A/c No. 2969 as it is a settled law that Bank Pass Book is not Books of Accounts hence the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT (A), is wrong, illegal and against the peculiar

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. CHITAVALSAH JUTE MILLS LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Acit, Vs. Chitavalasah Jute Mills Ltd, Range-1, 73-74, 201, Sheetala House, Faridabad Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccc6834D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

68 or section 41 of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer also did not make any inquiry with respect to the above figure of Rs 49,72,098. The appellant has submitted a number of case laws, in respect of ad-hoc addition as well as non-specification of the provisions of the Act under which the addition

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

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

M/S SHIVHARE ROADLINES,GWALIOR vs. JT. C.I.T., RANGE-2, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

depreciation at 30% is allowed to the appellant and accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed. 7. With regard to the next ground of appeal, it is seen that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the Ld. A.O. has disallowed Rs.37,19,883/- u/s 43B of the Act as service tax liability unpaid before the due date of filling

MARSHAL SECURITY SERVICES,AGRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Depreciation Expenses, Dress Expenses, Employee\nProvident Fund, Employee State insurance, Rebate & Discount, Rent\nExpenses, Staff Salaries Expenses.\n7. BECAUSE, the Ld. \"CIT(A)' before dismissing the appeal on the\nground that appellant failed to furnish any documentary evidence with\nregard to the expenses claimed by him, ought to have provided\nopportunity of hearing to the appellant to put forth

M/S UMA GLASS WORKS ,FIROZABAD vs. PR.CIT.-1, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

section 68 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the entire order of 14 pages of the Ld. PCIT contains the submissions/objections of the assessee running into 11 pages and the conclusion of the Ld. PCIT is in one small para on last page. The Ld. Counsel submits that the Ld. PCIT in her entire order

M/S UMA GLASS WORKS,AGRA vs. PR.CIT.-1, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

section 68 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the entire order of 14 pages of the Ld. PCIT contains the submissions/objections of the assessee running into 11 pages and the conclusion of the Ld. PCIT is in one small para on last page. The Ld. Counsel submits that the Ld. PCIT in her entire 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 145(3) is wholly illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant. 6. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 24,68,23,586/- out of addition of Rs 42,24,51,350/- made by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) further erred

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is partly

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

depreciation disallowance on fixed assets. The perusal of the impugned assessment order would reveal that the ld. Assessing Officer while considering the net profit rate of the assessee has given a comparative analysis of the turnover and profits of the appellant for the three assessment years as under: A.Y. Sales (Rs.) GP (Rs) G.P. Rate NP(Rs.) N.P. Rate

MODERN AGENCIES,JHANSI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-6, JHANSI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly

section 144 i.e. ‘Best Judgment Assessment.’ 3. The assessment of income as per discussion above is framed below: “a. The value of phyiscial stock taken on date of survey was Rs.1,30,14,587/-. The partner of the firms, Sh. Mukesh Agarwal in his statement on the date of survey was confronted with this stock inventory which was taken

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA vs. ALNOOR EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,625/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Id AO proceeded to examine the veracity of purchases made by the Assessee. The Assessee furnished the list of parties from whom it had made purchases. The Assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacture and export of frozen meat, hide, MBM, poultry feed, tallow etc., from

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA vs. ALNOOR EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

68,625/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld AO proceeded to examine the veracity of purchases made by the Assessee. The Assessee furnished the list of parties from whom it had made purchases. The Assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacture and export of frozen meat, hide, MBM, poultry feed, tallow etc., from

RISHAV SHELTERS P LTD,AGRA vs. JCIT RANGE-4 , AGRA

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

section 145(3)— Assessee did not produce complete bills and vouchers of expenses claimed, therefore, it was reasonable and appropriate for CIT(A) to hold that prof it rate of 6 percent was fair and reasonable for purpose of computing business income of assessee—AO had applied exorbitant and unreasonable profit rate of12.5 percent without considering history of assessee

SMT. SARLA DEVI,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

68 of the Act, Rs.2,35,096/- u/s 69 of the Act and Rs.2,42,933/- u/s 69C of the Act, were confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), Ghaziabad vide order in Appeal No.48/2009-10/GZB-ALG, dated 21-02-2011. 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the penalty order dated 30.03.2012, as sustained

M/S GINNI FILAMENTS LTD.,MATHURA vs. A.C.I.T., RANGE-3, MATHURA

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

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

68,05,337/- by applying the average GP rate 20.02% which is increased by 11.61% of the relevant year GP rate. The assessee's co. had G.P. rate of 2035% in the A.Y. 2010-11 and G.P. rate of 19.69% in A.Y. 2011-12. The same has fallen to 8.41% in the relevant assessment year i.e. 2012-13. The assessee