B K KESHARWANI, AGRA vs. MADHUR MITTAL, AGRA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ld Cit(A), Who Partly Allowed

153 A r.w.s. 143(3)/254 of the Act, repeating the original addition in this second appeal. 5. Assessee preferred first appeal before ld CIT(A) in this second round of litigation, wherein ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition of Rs. 2,43,07,000/- which was added u/s. 68 of the Act and also quashed the penalty

SH. MANOJ AGRAWAL,GWALIOR vs. I.T.O.-2(2), GWALIOR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is required to be failed and accordingly we dismiss both the appeals

disallowance for personal use of Telephone Rs.3,241/- ( a ) H o u s e h o l d W i t h d r a w a l s R s . 1 1 , 0 5 0 / - 5. The ld. AR had submitted that on 22 September 2008, the assessee filed a letter requesting the assessing officer to supply the copy

M/S VERMA SERVICE STATION,FIROZABAD vs. D.C.I.T., RANGE-5, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowed interest of Rs.2,85,984/- and Rs.1,83,248/- for which, it was stated that the authorized representative of the assessee conceded. 3. Being aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-II, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by holding that no appeal is maintainable since the assessment order was passedon the confession