SH RANJAN KUMAR ARORA,FARRUKHABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE 4(2)(1), FARRUKHABAD

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Ranjan Kumar Arora, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 5/30, Nehru Road, Circle-4(2)(1), Farrukhabad, Up- 2096625 Farrukhabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aakpa0524D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2025

68 & 69 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of presumption, hypothesis and conjectures and completely brushed aside all the evidences along with explanations regarding the source of investment and books of accounts provided by the assessee. 5. That the authorities below have erred in law by invoking the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income

MADHURI JAISWAL,GWALIOR, MADHYA PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT 3(1), GWL, GWALIOR, MADHYAPRADESH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

section 68 of the IT Act1961 which is absolutely not justified and illegal as well as not accordance with law. 1. Lalchand Bhagat Atma Ram Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288- if the entries in the books of account on regard to the balance in the ROKAR are held to be genuine logically enough there is no escape from

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

SMT ARCHANA DUTTA,MATHURA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Archana Dutta, Prop. M/S Vs..Acit,Circle-3, Dutta & Dutta Construction, Co., Mathura. 77E Dutta & Dutta Construction, Govind Nagar, Mathura. Panno.Afxpd7557B (Assessee) (Revenue)

68 of the 'Act'. 5. BECAUSE, after having rejected the books of accounts by invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the 'Act' and thereafter computing Business Profit after application of profit rate there is no valid basis for making separate addition of Rs. 9,157/- under section 43B of the Act. 6. BECAUSE, alternatively, in any view

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

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

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

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

SHRI SIYARAM YADAV,MAINPURI vs. ITO 2(5), MAINPURI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

76,100/- made by the A.O. u/s 68. 10. That the C.I.T. (Appeal) and A.O. have erred on facts and in law to not allow credit of accretion of saving from agriculture income and other income for Rs. 22,38,000/- when the A.O. has I.T.A No. 117/Agra/2017 3 himself accepted the source of income from agriculture

STATE BANK OF INDIA,GWALIOR vs. CIT A , GWALIOR

In the result, ITA No.42/Agr/2018 is allowed for statistical

68, 61, State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 57 City Center, BPLS11822G 85,,76,77 India, Branch- Gwalior /Ag/2018 Raghaogarh, A.Y.2013-14 Guna 58- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 70 & 64 State Bank of 59 City Center, BPLS11718A /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior A.Y.2013-14 Mayana, guna 60- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 69 & 65 State Bank of 61- City Center, BPLS11689G /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior Pagagra

STATE BANK OF INDIA,GWALIOR vs. CIT A, GWALIOR

In the result, ITA No.42/Agr/2018 is allowed for statistical

68, 61, State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 57 City Center, BPLS11822G 85,,76,77 India, Branch- Gwalior /Ag/2018 Raghaogarh, A.Y.2013-14 Guna 58- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 70 & 64 State Bank of 59 City Center, BPLS11718A /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior A.Y.2013-14 Mayana, guna 60- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 69 & 65 State Bank of 61- City Center, BPLS11689G /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior Pagagra

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

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)

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 Garib KalyanYojna to the extent of Rs.20,00,000/- in cash. Accordingly, he proceeded to make the above said addition of Rs.20,00,000/-. 3. Aggrieved with the above

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

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

76,14,470/- giving N.P. rate of Rs. 4.39% as is evident ITA 108 & 121/Agr/2015 19 from the chart tabulated above. Assessment order passed under section 143(3) by theJCIT, Range-4,Agra, in the case of the assessee for AY 2011-12 estimated Net Profit @ 8%and assessing interest income separately over and above the estimated income

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)

76,850/- has escaped assessment. Dated: 25.03.2015 Income tax Officer 1(3), Agra” 9. Per contra, the learned D.RShriWaseemArshad, at the outset objected to the submissions made by the learnedA.R and stated that since assessee had not challenged the validity of notice under section (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) 148 of the Act before the authorities below therefore, it cannot

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)

76, to which, facts are ‘para materia’ with our case and at page 77, another judgment of Delhi Bench of the ITAT, has been relied upon, wherein, it has been held as under:- “In our considered opinion, when the case of assessee is covered under the provision of section 153 of the Act and if reliance is placed