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

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)

246 ITR 188 (Guj.) and IT AT in Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority vs. DDIT (ITA No.5584 & 5062/Mum/2009 dated 29.06.2012. By referring these decisions, the Ld. AR pointed out that the Hon’ble Courts have held that the registration of a trust once done is a fait accompli and the AO cannot thereafter, make further probe into the objects

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)

246 ITR 188 (Guj.) and IT AT in Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority vs. DDIT (ITA No.5584 & 5062/Mum/2009 dated 29.06.2012. By referring these decisions, the Ld. AR pointed out that the Hon’ble Courts have held that the registration of a trust once done is a fait accompli and the AO cannot thereafter, make further probe into the objects

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)

246 ITR 188 (Guj.) and IT AT in Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority vs. DDIT (ITA No.5584 & 5062/Mum/2009 dated 29.06.2012. By referring these decisions, the Ld. AR pointed out that the Hon’ble Courts have held that the registration of a trust once done is a fait accompli and the AO cannot thereafter, make further probe into the objects

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(10, ALIGARH vs. SONU VARSHNEY, ALIGARH

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the cross-objection

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Sonu Varshney, Pratishtha, Ward 4(1)(1), Aligarh. Pragati Vihar, Ramghat Road, Aligarh. Pan :Acupv9679E (Appellant) (Respondent)

246/- and Rs.20,00,000/- declared in PMGKY-2016, the difference of Rs.1,50,29,754/- was considered as unexplained cash credits. Accordingly, he proceeded to make addition u/s. 68 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) and taxed the same u/s. 115BBE of the Act. Further, he observed that the assessee has contributed in Pradhan Mntri

BIJENDRA KUMAR,MATHURA vs. ITO-1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

246 ITR 363 (MP), the same question has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the following principles are laid down:- “The Commissioner acted, of course, mechanically in order to discharge his statutory obligation properly in the matter of recording sanction as he merely wrote on the format “Yes, I am satisfied” which indicates

GHANSHYAM ,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

246 ITR 363 (MP), the same I.T.A No. 238/Agra/2018 8 & I.T.A No. 129/Agra/2018 question has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the following principles are laid down:- “The Commissioner acted, of course, mechanically in order to discharge his statutory obligation properly in the matter of recording sanction as he merely wrote on the format

GHANSHYAM ,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

246 ITR 363 (MP), the same I.T.A No. 238/Agra/2018 8 & I.T.A No. 129/Agra/2018 question has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the following principles are laid down:- “The Commissioner acted, of course, mechanically in order to discharge his statutory obligation properly in the matter of recording sanction as he merely wrote on the format

AVNINDRA MISHRA,MATHURA vs. ITO-1(3)(1), MATHURA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

246 ITR 363 (MP), the same question has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the following principles are laid down:- “The Commissioner acted, of course, mechanically in order to discharge his statutory obligation properly in the matter of recording sanction as he merely wrote on the format “Yes, I am satisfied” which indicates

ANITA YADAV,MATHURA vs. ITO -1(3)(1), MATHURA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

246 ITR 363 (MP), the same question has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the following principles are laid down:- I.T.A No. 422/Agra/2017 9 “The Commissioner acted, of course, mechanically in order to discharge his statutory obligation properly in the matter of recording sanction as he merely wrote on the format “Yes, I am satisfied” which