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

1, 2 & 9 to 12 are regarding validity of invoking of the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act and consequently the impugned revision order passed under section 263 is sought to be cancelled. The assessee is an Association of Person, formed as a special purpose vehicle (SPV) having two Joint Venture partners namely M/s Rithwik Projects Private

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

1, 2 & 9 to 12 are regarding validity of invoking of the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act and consequently the impugned revision order passed under section 263 is sought to be cancelled. The assessee is an Association of Person, formed as a special purpose vehicle (SPV) having two Joint Venture partners namely M/s Rithwik Projects Private

SHAKUNTALA KUSHWAHA,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(3), ALLAHABAD

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2009-10 Shakuntala Kushwaha V. Income Tax Officer 2(3) 105/54, Kareli Allahabad Allahabad Tan/Pan:Aodpk2329D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Shri S. K. Madhuk, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 02 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 02 2020

section 263 of the Act were initiated, on the ground that on the freight paid during the year, amounting to Rs.9,32,378/- (8,09,896/- + 1,71,216/-), TDS

MAHAVIR PRASAD SATISH CHANDRA,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) , ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year 2013-14

1- That in any view of the matter the assessment made on an income of Rs. 25,46,800/- by order dated 15-03-2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act is bad both on the facts and in law and income declared in the return should have been accepted. 2- That in any view

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

In the result, both appeals i

1,99,86,679/- on account of contractual receipt despite the fact that as per Rule 37BA the credit for TDS and paid to the Central Government shall be given for the assessment year for which such income is assessable, the assessee has failed to do so. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that after

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

In the result, both appeals i

1,99,86,679/- on account of contractual receipt despite the fact that as per Rule 37BA the credit for TDS and paid to the Central Government shall be given for the assessment year for which such income is assessable, the assessee has failed to do so. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that after