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

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

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

38,396.00 52,56,92,612.00 91,41,31,008.00 Copy of assessment orders u/s 143(1)/143(3)/154 for the assessment years 2006- 07 , 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12 has been enclosed from Page No. 03-34 for your perusal.” A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 12.2 The ld. CIT(A) was pleased to dismiss the appeal

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

38,396.00 52,56,92,612.00 91,41,31,008.00 Copy of assessment orders u/s 143(1)/143(3)/154 for the assessment years 2006- 07 , 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12 has been enclosed from Page No. 03-34 for your perusal.” A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 12.2 The ld. CIT(A) was pleased to dismiss the appeal

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

38,396.00 52,56,92,612.00 91,41,31,008.00 Copy of assessment orders u/s 143(1)/143(3)/154 for the assessment years 2006- 07 , 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12 has been enclosed from Page No. 03-34 for your perusal.” A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 12.2 The ld. CIT(A) was pleased to dismiss the appeal

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

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 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

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

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

TDS has been effected on such Commission Payment. e. Payment of Commission has been accepted by the same CIT (A) in case of son of the assessee on like facts and analogues circumstances and on similar considerations. f. The persons who have been paid the Commission have not been interrogated or examined. There is no denial of receipt of Commission

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

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

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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 out by the ld. AO. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the assessee had pointed out that the discrepancy

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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 out by the ld. AO. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the assessee had pointed out that the discrepancy