ACIT, CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. M/S N CHAURASIA ASSOCIATES, , SONEBHADRA (AAJFM0374N)

In the result, while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed the appeal of the Department is held to be allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S N. Chaurasia Associates, Income Tax, Circle-3, Mirzapur Shaktinagar, Sonebhadra Pan:Aajfm0374N (Appellant) (Respondent) & A.Y. 2014-15 M/S N. Chaurasia Associates, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Khadia Bazar, Shaktinagar, Tax, Circle-Iii, Mirzapur Sonebhadra Pan:Aajfm0374N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Navin C. Agrawal, C.A. & Ms. Nita Goyal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals For Have Both Been Filed Against The Order Under Section 250 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Allahabad On 10.01.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue In Ita No. 41/Alld/2019, Are As Under:- "Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Has Not Erred In Allowing The Relief Of Rs. 6,51,65,031/- By Accepting The Assessee'S Statement That The Receipts Are From Its Business Activity In Civil Construction Without Any Verifiable A.Y. 2014-15 M/S N. Chaurasia Associates

section 143(2). The ld. AO observed, that as compared to assessment year 2012-13, the assessee had shown declining profit rates in the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 and in the assessment year 2014-15, the net profit rate was only rupees 2.437%. The ld. AO observed, that as per Form 26AS, the total contract receipts were

M/S. SUBHASH STONE INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NAINITAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3) , reiterated the additions of Rs. 6,26,650/- made by the AO in the original assessment order dated 21.12.2010 passed u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. The aforesaid additions of Rs. 6,26,650/- were made mostly by disallowing the business expenses claimed by the assessee under various heads, and details are as under : a) Disallowance

M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both appeals i

TDS Certificate) which action was not correct. It was submitted that the case had originally been assessed under section 143

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both appeals i

TDS Certificate) which action was not correct. It was submitted that the case had originally been assessed under section 143

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

Section 40(a)(ia) of the 1961 Act, disallowed the Rebate expenses and added the same to income of the assessee, vide assessment order dated 31.03.2016 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 18. The assessee company being aggrieved by assessment framed by AO, carried the matter further before

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

Section 40(a)(ia) of the 1961 Act, disallowed the Rebate expenses and added the same to income of the assessee, vide assessment order dated 31.03.2016 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 18. The assessee company being aggrieved by assessment framed by AO, carried the matter further before

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

Section 40(a)(ia) of the 1961 Act, disallowed the Rebate expenses and added the same to income of the assessee, vide assessment order dated 31.03.2016 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 18. The assessee company being aggrieved by assessment framed by AO, carried the matter further before

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the IT Act') was completed on 28.12.2007. The Assessing Officer, vide order dated 12.10.2009, disallowed the export commission charges paid by the assessee to M/s. Steel Crackers Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 40,82,089/- while stating that the tax deducted at source (TDS

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

TDS of Rs. 5,37,892/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and scrutiny assessment was completed under section 143

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

TDS of Rs. 5,37,892/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and scrutiny assessment was completed under section 143

M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Deora Electric Works V. The Jcit 58-A, Sardar Patel Marg Range – I Allahabad Allahabad Pan:Aadfd7479B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 03 2025 O R D E R

TDS, it was submitted that the same was not made according to the bonafide belief that tax deduction was not required for the amounts below Rs.50,000/-. Regarding the payments disallowable under section 40A(3) of the Act, it was submitted that these were made after office hours at various sites. Regarding the difference in amount of bank guarantee

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)

143(2) on 19th September, 2017 and thereafter, the notices under Section 142(1) dated 26th October, 2017 and 4th December, 2017. Since, there was no compliance by the assessee of the notice issued under Section 142(1) dated 26th October, 2017. The AO also initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) and levied the penalty vide order

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2010-11. As the issues involved in these appeals are common, these appeals are being taken up for disposal together for the sake of convenience. The grounds of appeal in the appeals and Cross Objection are as under:- C.O. No.24/Alld/2014 M/s Kesarwani & Co. “1. That the learned

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2010-11. As the issues involved in these appeals are common, these appeals are being taken up for disposal together for the sake of convenience. The grounds of appeal in the appeals and Cross Objection are as under:- C.O. No.24/Alld/2014 M/s Kesarwani & Co. “1. That the learned

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

section 40(a) (ia) as invoked is not correct as the said provision is not applicable at all hence the action of two lower authorities are incorrect. 3. That in any view of the matter the nature of expenditure is marketing expenses incurred by the assessee company is towards reimbursement of payment made by distributors appointed by the company hence

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

section 40(a) (ia) as invoked is not correct as the said provision is not applicable at all hence the action of two lower authorities are incorrect. 3. That in any view of the matter the nature of expenditure is marketing expenses incurred by the assessee company is towards reimbursement of payment made by distributors appointed by the company hence

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. M/S. J.P.YADAV , SONEBHADRA

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 144 of the Income-tax Act,1961(hereinafter called “ the Act”) .We have heard both the parties through physical hearing mode in Open Court. 1 Assessment Year: 2011-12 ACIT Circle-3, Mirzapur, U.P. v. M/s J.P. Yadav Sonebhadra,U.P. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by Revenue in ITA No. 319/Alld./2018, in memo of appeal filed with

M/S KESARWANI <ARKETING (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). The assessee made contentions that the additions are not sustainable and need to be deleted. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, by holding that contents of trial balance cannot be disbelieved unless otherwise proved. Reference was drawn to Section 292C, and ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee failed to reconcile the difference. Aggrieved

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). The assessee made contentions that the additions are not sustainable and need to be deleted. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, by holding that contents of trial balance cannot be disbelieved unless otherwise proved. Reference was drawn to Section 292C, and ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee failed to reconcile the difference. Aggrieved