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

TDS provisions u/s 194H are not attracted on the remaining payment. It was submitted that Rs. 52.08 lacs was paid to parties towards Rebate for breakage of glass. On being asked by the Bench, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that it was orally explained before ld. CIT(A) that Rs. 52.08 lacs were towards claim for breakage

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(3) on 07.03.2014 by accepting the return of income at Nil. Thereafter, the Pr. CIT on examination of the assessment record, noticed that M/s Ratna Infrastructure Project Private Limited was awarded a contract of Rs. 1

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(3) on 07.03.2014 by accepting the return of income at Nil. Thereafter, the Pr. CIT on examination of the assessment record, noticed that M/s Ratna Infrastructure Project Private Limited was awarded a contract of Rs. 1

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)

1,69,00,000/-, as upheld by ld. CIT(A). The assessee has claimed that these are payments of confidential/secret nature and the details of payees and other details cannot be disclosed. It is claimed that no income tax was deducted at source while making payments under this head as otherwise confidentiality would have been breached

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)

1,69,00,000/-, as upheld by ld. CIT(A). The assessee has claimed that these are payments of confidential/secret nature and the details of payees and other details cannot be disclosed. It is claimed that no income tax was deducted at source while making payments under this head as otherwise confidentiality would have been breached

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)

1,69,00,000/-, as upheld by ld. CIT(A). The assessee has claimed that these are payments of confidential/secret nature and the details of payees and other details cannot be disclosed. It is claimed that no income tax was deducted at source while making payments under this head as otherwise confidentiality would have been breached

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)

1,69,00,000/-, as upheld by ld. CIT(A). The assessee has claimed that these are payments of confidential/secret nature and the details of payees and other details cannot be disclosed. It is claimed that no income tax was deducted at source while making payments under this head as otherwise confidentiality would have been breached

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

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

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. C.IT,(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

RAJENDRA PD. GUPTA,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoshri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 1993-94

37,398/- on 09.04.2021 under the VSVS, 2020 scheme and hence the differential/shortfall would be Rs. 55,789/- as the assessee is liable to pay Rs.2,93,187/- owing to extension in time under the scheme. It is now a claim of the assessee that the assessment year being 1993-94, at that point of time , the assessee was holding

SMT. VIJAY LUXMI GUPTA (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI MUKESH GUPTA),ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

37 BA thereby enabling the credit of taxes to the actual payee in whose hands the income is assessable and not restricting this benefit only to the specified four situations. 17. In our view, the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal have rightly held that the assessee is entitled to the credit of the TDS mentioned in the TDS certificates issued

SAVLA AGENCIES,ALLAHABAD vs. JCIT, RANGE-I, , ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2011-12 Savla Agencies, V. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, 26, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Range-I, Allahabad Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aawfs0816J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Tanmay Sadh, Adv Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.01.2023 O R D E R

1)(iii) or section 37 of the Income Tax Act. Since the CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to remand the matter therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) qua this issue is not inconformity with provisions of section 250 and 251 of the Income Tax Act. Further, the AO has made the disallowance by considering the entries made

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

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

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

TDS has been deducted on the payments made to labour contractors u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Addition of Rs. 11,37,000/-“ 5. Aggrieved by reassessment order dated 22.11.2017 passed by AO u/s 147 read with Section 144 of the 1961 Act, the assessee filed first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) . During the course

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

37,631/- as against Rs.23,10,59,878/- 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