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)

254/- being the excess shown in the 'income and expenditure' account. The authorities below have erroneously disallowed the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act claimed by the appellant. The disallowance is again in utter disregard to the authoritative judicial pronouncements. The exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act, being in accordance with report in 10B, may kindly

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, MORENA vs. SHRI AGRASEN LOGISTICS, JOTAI ROAD, PORSA,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

2 filed with Registrar of Companies by such\napplicants, confirmations by applicants for company's shares, certificates by\nauditors, etc., Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition\nunder section 68 on account of share application money merely on general\ninference to be drawn from the reading of the investigation report. The least that\nAssessing Officer ought to have

VERMA SERVICE STATION,FIROZABAD vs. ACIT, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 68 has to be understood together as a requirement of identification of the source and the nature of the source, so that the genuineness or otherwise could be inferred. 5.6.2 The onus does not get discharged merely by such confirmatory letters as found in CIT Vs. United Commercial and Industrial

SANJANA GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO-WARD-2(3)(1) JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshsanjana Gupta, Vs. Ito, 130, Gudri Bazar, Jhansi Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Awbpg1536E Assessee By : Smt Prathna Jalan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R

2) of the Act was made by ld AO. The ld DVO valued the property at ₹40, 64, 800/-. The differential sum i.e. value determined by the ld DVO and the value reported by the assessee was sought to be added as income of the assessee under the head “income from capital gains” and the same was taxed @ 20% plus

SAPNA CHAUHAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, ETAWAH

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

254 of the Act the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine a question of law which thought not arose before lower authorities but arose before it from facts as found by lower authorities and having a bearing on tax liability of assessee. 7. In the case of Shri Abdul MajidVs CIT(2006) 153 Taxman

PUSHPA,MATHURA vs. ITO-1(2)(3), MATHURA

In the result,both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri. Pushpendra Singh. Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(2)(3), M-22, Phase-I, Mahavidhya Colony. Agra. Mathura. Pan: Dldps6755P (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Pushpa Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(2)(3), M-22, Phase-I, Mahavidhya Colony. Agra. Mathura. Pan: Bcopd0484L (Appellant) (Respondent)

254 of the Act that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine a question of law which though not arose before (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) lower authorities but arose before it from facts as found by lower authorities and having a bearing on tax liability of assessee. In the case of “Shri Abdul MajidVsCIT”, 153 Taxman

PREMWATI SUMAN,AGRA vs. ITO-1(3), AGRA

In the result both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Premwati Suman, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(3), 1/1, Hig Flats, Sanjay Place, Agra. Agra. Pan: Bnvps9819N (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri. Ranjeet Suman, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(3), 1/1, Hig Flats, Sanjay Place, Agra. Agra. Pan: Bnlps9622P (Appellant) (Respondent)

254 of the Act the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine a question of law which thought not arose before lower (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) authorities but arose before it from facts as found by lower authorities and having a bearing on tax liability of assessee. 12. In the case of Shri Abdul MajidVsCIT(2006) 153 Taxman

MANISH MAHESHWARI,GWALIOR vs. JCIT RANGE-2, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him Though Specific Request Was Made To Admit The Same. Ground No. 2 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed Theaddition Of Rs. 67,530/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 40A(3) Of The Income Tax Act. (Ii) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Legally Erred In Rejecting The Appellant'Sspecificsubmissionand The Unavoidable Circumstances Under Which The Payment Wasmade. Ground No. 3 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed An Addition Of Rs. 1,11,038/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Disallowing The Claim Of Interest Paid Holding The Same To Be Not Allowable U/S 57(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act.”

section 68 of the Act.” 4. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the additional evidence furnished by the appellant under Rule 46A of the Act and confirmed the addition as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act vide Para 7.3 as follows: “7.3 I have gone through the assessment order and written submission carefully

SUBHASH CHAND SHARMA,AGRA vs. ITO-2(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Mittha Lal Meenaasst. Year : 2011-12

2, the assessee challenged that the addition of Rs.33,57,510/- on account of the peak cash deposit in his bank account as unexplained investment. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee derived income from business of dairy products and interest on bank depositsand he furnished the return of income on 20.05.2011 declaring total income of Rs.1

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

2,985.96 16,080.53 8.41% U/S 143 (3)/250 9 The para 9 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2012-13 accepting the G.P. rate of 8.41% based on the remand report, was as under : "9. G.P. Addition Rs. 82,68,05,337/- The AO has made an addition ofRs. 82,68