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)

vii). Valuation report as on 31.03.2013. viii). Wealth tax returns. c). Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the admission was made by the assessee on 17.10.2014 in the statement recorded at the premises of company, after conclusion of the search at residential premises on 16.10.2014 and post-dated cheques were given at the time of search CO Nos.04, 03 & 05/Agr/2025

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)

vii). Valuation report as on 31.03.2013. viii). Wealth tax returns. c). Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the admission was made by the assessee on 17.10.2014 in the statement recorded at the premises of company, after conclusion of the search at residential premises on 16.10.2014 and post-dated cheques were given at the time of search CO Nos.04, 03 & 05/Agr/2025

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)

vii). Valuation report as on 31.03.2013. viii). Wealth tax returns. c). Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the admission was made by the assessee on 17.10.2014 in the statement recorded at the premises of company, after conclusion of the search at residential premises on 16.10.2014 and post-dated cheques were given at the time of search CO Nos.04, 03 & 05/Agr/2025

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

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

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

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

56,27.767/- from the amount of Rs.42,24,51,350/- by ignoring the provisions of sec.13(8) and allowing exemption u/s 11(1 )(a) r.w. 11 (2) of the I.T. Act. (iii) That, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.10,16,129/-,on account of electricity expenses, by ignoring the facts brought

ARJUN TRADING CO. PVT. LTD.,FIROZABAD vs. I.T.O.-5(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaarjun Trading Company Private Vs..Ito-5,(1), Ltd. A-4, Ganesh Nagar, Firozabad. Firozabad. Panno.Aadca7230J (Assessee) (Revenue)

56,047/-.” 2. The facts are that order dated 29.12.2010 was passed under sections 143(3)/147 of the Act at a total income of Rs.59,07,149/-, wherein an addition of Rs.59,80,000/- was made on account of unexplained cash credits in the form of share application money received during financial year 2002-03, invoking the provisions

MOHD ARIF,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), ETWAH, ETAWAH

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Mohd. Arif, Income Tax Officer, 68, Huiganj Pachraha, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Income Tax Office, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-206001 Vs Civil Lines, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-207001 Pan-Anapa8542J Appellant Respondent

68, Huiganj Pachraha, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Income Tax Office, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-206001 Vs Civil Lines, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-207001 PAN-ANAPA8542J Appellant Respondent Appellant by Shri Sushil Maheshwari, CA Respondent by Shri Anil Kumar Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.07.2025 ORDER, PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM, This appeal filed by the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. GAUSIA COLD STORAGE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwaldcit, Vs. Gausia Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Room No.104, First 304, Gurukrupa, 133, Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Kazi Sayed Street, Sanjay Place, Agra Maharashtra-400003 /""""""""./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg1215G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit, Dr Respondent By : Sh. Deependra Mohan, Ca

section 68 unexplained cash credit additions of Rs.4,98,58,200/- alleging the assessee to have failed to explain huge share premium followed by non- filing of the concerned valuation report under the prescribed method(s). P a g e | 2 Gausua Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. 4. It is in this factual backdrop that we invited learned

TAHIR KHAN,JHANSI vs. ITO, JHANSI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

68 of the Act without consideration of the material brought on records of the AO, facts of the case and law. 3. BECAUSE the authorities below were unjustified in making and confirming the impugned addition of Rs.97,31,000/- as deemed income of the appellant (taking the value u/s 56(2)(vii) at Govt. price (For stamp 2 purposes

POONAM GUPTA,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GWALIOR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 68 of the Act with respect to the amount received from the share broker M/s Deepak Securities has not been duly discharged by the Appellant? List the case for final hearing.” 4. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that the appeal is still pending before the Hon’ble High Court and to this effect he filed evidence

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

1. ‘Virat Credit & Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in CO No. 57/Del/2012 in 2. ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO’, ITA No.5111/Del/2013. 3. ‘Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions have been relied

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

1. ‘Virat Credit & Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in CO No. 57/Del/2012 in 2. ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO’, ITA No.5111/Del/2013. 3. ‘Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions have been relied

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

1. ‘Virat Credit & Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in CO No. 2. 57/Del/2012 in ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO’, ITA No.5111/Del/2013. 3. ‘Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. I.T.A No. 441/Agra/2017 6 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

1. ‘Virat Credit & Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in CO No. 2. 57/Del/2012 in ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO’, ITA No.5111/Del/2013. 3. ‘Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions have been relied

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

1. ‘Virat Credit & Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in CO No. 2. 57/Del/2012 in ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO’, ITA No.5111/Del/2013. 3. ‘Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions have been relied