SECRETARY, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH,ALLAHABAD vs. IT OFFICER, T.D.S., ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Ito (Tds), V. Public Service Commission 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, (Lok Sewa Aayog), Allahabad,Up Uttar Pradesh, Stanley Road, Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Secretary, V. The Income Tax Officer (Tds), Public Service Commission Aaykar Bhawan, (Lok Sewa Aayog), 38, M.G. Marg, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad,Up Stanley Road Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS), Public Service Commission Aaykar Bhawan, (Lok Sewa Aayog), 38, M.G. Marg, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad,UP Stanley Road Allahabad,UP TAN: ALDL00365B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Respondent by: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Adv. Date of hearing: 03. 02. 2021 Date of pronouncement: 26.03. 2021 ITA Nos. 329-330/ALLD/2017 & 10-11/ALLD/2018 Assessment Years

SECRETARY, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH,ALLAHABAD vs. IT OFFICER, T.D.S., ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Ito (Tds), V. Public Service Commission 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, (Lok Sewa Aayog), Allahabad,Up Uttar Pradesh, Stanley Road, Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Secretary, V. The Income Tax Officer (Tds), Public Service Commission Aaykar Bhawan, (Lok Sewa Aayog), 38, M.G. Marg, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad,Up Stanley Road Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS), Public Service Commission Aaykar Bhawan, (Lok Sewa Aayog), 38, M.G. Marg, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad,UP Stanley Road Allahabad,UP TAN: ALDL00365B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Respondent by: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Adv. Date of hearing: 03. 02. 2021 Date of pronouncement: 26.03. 2021 ITA Nos. 329-330/ALLD/2017 & 10-11/ALLD/2018 Assessment Years

ITO(TDS),, ALLAHABAD vs. LOK SEWA AYOG,, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Ito (Tds), V. Public Service Commission 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, (Lok Sewa Aayog), Allahabad,Up Uttar Pradesh, Stanley Road, Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Secretary, V. The Income Tax Officer (Tds), Public Service Commission Aaykar Bhawan, (Lok Sewa Aayog), 38, M.G. Marg, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad,Up Stanley Road Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS), Public Service Commission Aaykar Bhawan, (Lok Sewa Aayog), 38, M.G. Marg, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad,UP Stanley Road Allahabad,UP TAN: ALDL00365B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Respondent by: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Adv. Date of hearing: 03. 02. 2021 Date of pronouncement: 26.03. 2021 ITA Nos. 329-330/ALLD/2017 & 10-11/ALLD/2018 Assessment Years

M/S RITHWIK RK JOINT VENTURE vs. PR. CIT, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

38, MG Marg, Civil lines, Allahabad and explain why the assessment order passed in your case be not treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue and be cancelled to be revised under the provisions of Section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 10. As it is evident from the show cause notice, the Commissioner has raised various

M/S. RITHWIK RK JOINT VENTURE,HYDERABAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

38, MG Marg, Civil lines, Allahabad and explain why the assessment order passed in your case be not treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue and be cancelled to be revised under the provisions of Section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 10. As it is evident from the show cause notice, the Commissioner has raised various

M/S MILLENIUM CONSULTANTS& SERVICE PROVIDERS,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head "profit and gains of business or profession (ia) any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty, fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable to a resident, or amounts payable to a contactor or sub-contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work

DILSHAD HUSAIN,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT CIR.-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.52, 53 & 54/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2011-12 Dilshad Husain, Cit(Appeal), National 178, Salreha Pacchim, Sirathu, Vs. Faceless Appeal Centre Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Acbph7430G (Appellant) (Respondent)

38,71,660.00 200150.00 1,14,10,110.00 3. Section 44AE provides for computing profits and gains of business of plying, hiring or leasing goods carriers who has not more than 10 goods carriers. This section is silent on the Gross Receipt of the Truck and also provisions of Section 44AA and 44AB shall not apply. The appellant

DILSHAD HUSAIN,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO- 2(1), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.52, 53 & 54/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2011-12 Dilshad Husain, Cit(Appeal), National 178, Salreha Pacchim, Sirathu, Vs. Faceless Appeal Centre Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Acbph7430G (Appellant) (Respondent)

38,71,660.00 200150.00 1,14,10,110.00 3. Section 44AE provides for computing profits and gains of business of plying, hiring or leasing goods carriers who has not more than 10 goods carriers. This section is silent on the Gross Receipt of the Truck and also provisions of Section 44AA and 44AB shall not apply. The appellant

DILSHAD HUSAIN,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.52, 53 & 54/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2011-12 Dilshad Husain, Cit(Appeal), National 178, Salreha Pacchim, Sirathu, Vs. Faceless Appeal Centre Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Acbph7430G (Appellant) (Respondent)

38,71,660.00 200150.00 1,14,10,110.00 3. Section 44AE provides for computing profits and gains of business of plying, hiring or leasing goods carriers who has not more than 10 goods carriers. This section is silent on the Gross Receipt of the Truck and also provisions of Section 44AA and 44AB shall not apply. The appellant

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING (P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT (OSD), ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

TDS is not applicable therefore the addition sustained to the extent of Rs. 10,23,076.00 is illegal and unwarranted. 4. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 2,46,894.00 as maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as per Para 8.4 is highly unjustified in so far as the disallowance made on adhoc basis

KESARWANI MARKETING(P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

TDS is not applicable therefore the addition sustained to the extent of Rs. 10,23,076.00 is illegal and unwarranted. 4. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 2,46,894.00 as maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as per Para 8.4 is highly unjustified in so far as the disallowance made on adhoc basis

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

10. We shall now take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 19/Alld/2020 for ay: 2012- 13. The grounds of appeals raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with tribunal reads as under:- “1. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts to confirm the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3) , ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

10. We shall now take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 19/Alld/2020 for ay: 2012- 13. The grounds of appeals raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with tribunal reads as under:- “1. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts to confirm the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

10. We shall now take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 19/Alld/2020 for ay: 2012- 13. The grounds of appeals raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with tribunal reads as under:- “1. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts to confirm the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer

LATE SRI ZIA USMANI THROUGH L/H AND WIFE SMT. MEHVISH USMANI,ALLAHABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

38, M.G. Allahabad-211018 Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad-211001. PAN: AAHPU 0807 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Ashish Bansal, Adv. Respondent by Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing 06/04/2021 Date of pronouncement 12/04/2021 O R D E R The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.08.2019 and CIT(A) arising from penalty

KESARWANI & CO.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

10,59,878/- taken by the ld. AO while the sales were at Rs.26,82,38,594/- against sales of Rs. 26,52,92,658/- taken by the ld. AO. Furthermore, the gross profit declared by the assessee was Rs.1,40,08,718/- as against the GP of Rs.1,27,40,535/- worked

ACIT,, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S KESARWANI & CO., ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

10,59,878/- taken by the ld. AO while the sales were at Rs.26,82,38,594/- against sales of Rs. 26,52,92,658/- taken by the ld. AO. Furthermore, the gross profit declared by the assessee was Rs.1,40,08,718/- as against the GP of Rs.1,27,40,535/- worked

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), ALLAHABAD vs. MONAD INFRASOLUTION LIMITED, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose and the Cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, V. Monad Infrasolution Limited, Ward-2(2), Allahabad C-80 Gtb Nagar Kareli, Allahabad, 211016 U.P. Pan-Aajcm2155J (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 01/Alld/2021 In Assessment Year: 2015-16 Monad Infrasolution Limited, V. Income Tax Officer, C-80 Gtb Nagar Kareli, Ward-2(2), Allahabad Allahabad, 211016 U.P. Pan-Aajcm2155J (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS payable. It was further explained that the brokerage / commission expenses are paid to the agents/brokers who help the assessee company in its business of real estate development at the initial stage of the business. 5. Similarly, the assessee explained that the expenses shown under the head consultancy fees in fact, represents the site development expenses. Thus, these