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

68 of the Act which creates a deeming fiction and which requires the assessee to prima-facie prove the three ingredients of the said section. (a) Identity of the Person (b) Genuineness of the transaction and (c) Creditworthiness of the Creditor 26. We noted that during the course of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) assessee after furnishing written

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), GWALIOR vs. B.P. EDIBLE OIL PVT LTD, GWALIOR

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2011-12

79,02,891/-as against 7 the turnover of Rs. 7,16,66,316/- of the immediately preceding year, apart from new investment in stone business. On these facts and circumstances of the appellant, it is abundantly clear that the appellant company had discharged its onus of proving the ingredients of genuine credits under section 68

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

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

RAVENDRA SINGH,AGRA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and direct the ld

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Ravendra Singh Vs. Acit, 28, Tota Ka Taal Circle 1(2)(1), Loha Mandi, Uttar Pradesh Agra Pan : Abyps5329K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shashank Agarwal, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.02.2026 Order

79-year-old senior citizen and inadvertently missed noticing such communications. The non-appearance was therefore bona fide and not deliberate. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in summarily dismissing the appeal instead of deciding the same on merits as required under section 250(6) of the Act hence the order is bad in law and llable

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

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

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

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1) , GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

section 270 AA of the Act had been duly complied with and filing of Form No. 68 alone could not be done within time which was to be construed as a procedural provision. e) The assessee further stated that the office of their Chartered Accountants in Gwalior remained closed from

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

section 270 AA of the Act had been duly complied with and filing of Form No. 68 alone could not be done within time which was to be construed as a procedural provision. e) The assessee further stated that the office of their Chartered Accountants in Gwalior remained closed from

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

section 270 AA of the Act had been duly complied with and filing of Form No. 68 alone could not be done within time which was to be construed as a procedural provision. e) The assessee further stated that the office of their Chartered Accountants in Gwalior remained closed from

SMT. GARIMA MEHTA,GWALIOR vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(2), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

79,438/- earned from this unit was claimed as exempt u/s 10A of the IT Act. The AO disallowed the assessee’s claim u/s 10A on the basis that the 21. assessee did not fulfill the conditions contained in section 10A. It was observed that the business premises of the assessee was not situated either in a Software Technology

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

79 ITR 603 (SC). ii. ‘CIT vs. M/s G.S. Tiwari and Co.’, 38 taxman.com 259 iii. (All). ‘M/s Ginni Filaments vs. CIT’, Writ Tax No. 1402 of iv. 2004 (All. H.C.) I.T.A Nos.409 & 419/Agra/2017 6 ‘Sushrut Institute of Plastic Surgery vs. Dy. CIT’, Misc. v. Bench No 219 of 2014 (All. H.C.) ‘Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, HUF vs. DCIT

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

79 ITR 603 (SC). ii. ‘CIT vs. M/s G.S. Tiwari and Co.’, 38 taxman.com 259 iii. (All). ‘M/s Ginni Filaments vs. CIT’, Writ Tax No. 1402 of iv. 2004 (All. H.C.) ‘Sushrut Institute of Plastic Surgery vs. Dy. CIT’, Misc. v. Bench No 219 of 2014 (All. H.C.) ‘Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, HUF vs. DCIT’, ITA vi. No.290/Agra/2010 (ITAT-Agra

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

79 ITR 603 (SC). ii. ‘CIT vs. M/s G.S. Tiwari and Co.’, 38 taxman.com 259 iii. (All). ‘M/s Ginni Filaments vs. CIT’, Writ Tax No. 1402 of iv. 2004 (All. H.C.) ‘Sushrut Institute of Plastic Surgery vs. Dy. CIT’, Misc. v. Bench No 219 of 2014 (All. H.C.) ‘Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, HUF vs. DCIT’, ITA vi. No.290/Agra/2010 (ITAT-Agra

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

79 ITR 603 (SC). ii. ‘CIT vs. M/s G.S. Tiwari and Co.’, 38 taxman.com 259 (All). iii. ‘M/s Ginni Filaments vs. CIT’, Writ Tax No. 1402 of 2004 iv. (All. H.C.) I.T.A No. 238/Agra/2018 5 & I.T.A No. 129/Agra/2018 ‘Sushrut Institute of Plastic Surgery vs. Dy. CIT’, Misc. Bench v. No 219 of 2014 (All. H.C.) ‘Sanjay DCIT’, vi. Kumar Agarwal