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. 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

2) , vide assessment order dated 21.12.2010 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. The Revenue conducted search and seizure operations u/s 132(1) against the assessee, on 03.02.2011 , and hence assessment originally framed by the AO u/s 143(3) , on 21st December, 2010 for assessment year 2008-09, was made prior to the date of search

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

3. Ground Nos. 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 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

3. Ground Nos. 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

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)

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 dated

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

In the result, both appeals i

2. As both these appeals emanate out of the same order, they are being taken up together for the sake of convenience. 3. The facts of the case are, that the assessee filed a return of income on 29.9.2009, declaring a total income of Rs.17,40,230/-. Assessment in this case was completed under section 143(3) on 30.12.2011. Subsequently

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

In the result, both appeals i

2. As both these appeals emanate out of the same order, they are being taken up together for the sake of convenience. 3. The facts of the case are, that the assessee filed a return of income on 29.9.2009, declaring a total income of Rs.17,40,230/-. Assessment in this case was completed under section 143(3) on 30.12.2011. Subsequently

M/S BALAJI AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES(P).LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT. (0SD), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee and Revenue for ay: 2009-10 are allowed for statistical purposes, while CO filed by assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 133A of the Act. The AO observed that the weight of items in quantity of purchases, consumption and closing stock shown in loose paper found in Annexure P-6 and weight in quantity shown in audit report are the same. The relevant impounded paper and audit report showing quantitative detail of raw material, consumption , purchases and stock were scanned

M/S BALAJI AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT,CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee and Revenue for ay: 2009-10 are allowed for statistical purposes, while CO filed by assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 133A of the Act. The AO observed that the weight of items in quantity of purchases, consumption and closing stock shown in loose paper found in Annexure P-6 and weight in quantity shown in audit report are the same. The relevant impounded paper and audit report showing quantitative detail of raw material, consumption , purchases and stock were scanned

M/S BALAJU AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES(P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT. CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee and Revenue for ay: 2009-10 are allowed for statistical purposes, while CO filed by assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 133A of the Act. The AO observed that the weight of items in quantity of purchases, consumption and closing stock shown in loose paper found in Annexure P-6 and weight in quantity shown in audit report are the same. The relevant impounded paper and audit report showing quantitative detail of raw material, consumption , purchases and stock were scanned

JCIT(OSD),, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S BALAJI AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES, (P) LTD., ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee and Revenue for ay: 2009-10 are allowed for statistical purposes, while CO filed by assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 133A of the Act. The AO observed that the weight of items in quantity of purchases, consumption and closing stock shown in loose paper found in Annexure P-6 and weight in quantity shown in audit report are the same. The relevant impounded paper and audit report showing quantitative detail of raw material, consumption , purchases and stock were scanned

GAYA PRASAD BAJAJ,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2012-13 Gaya Prasad Bajaj, V. Income Tax Officer, 34-A, Chak Zero Road, Ward-1(2) Allahabad, U.P. Allahabad, U.P. Pan-Aampb9895N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Abhinav Mehrotra, C.A. Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.08.2021

3. Because, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) as also that of the Assessing Officer, is unsustainable and bad in law as the right of the assessee, to Cross-examine the evidence and deposition of witnesses, etc. gathered behind his back has been illegally denies. The entire

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CPC (TDS) , ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E