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

92,002/- Cr c) Tarun Savla Rs. 15,54,351/- Cr d) Devaang Savla Rs. 2,87,073/- Cr Interest @ 12% on the above credit balances comes to Rs 2,07,404/-, Rs 4,19,040/ Rs 1,86,522/- & Rs 33,971/- respectively whereas you have credited above partners capital

M/SPANDEY TRANSPORT CO.,SONEBHADRA vs. ITO,, MIRZAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

92,880.00 is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That in any view of the matter the learned CIT (appeal) was wrong in passing ex-party order without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee hence the order is not speaking order in the eyes of law. 3. That in any view of the matter

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

92,612/- and prayers were made that correct figures should be considered , although the assessee did not revise Form No. 36 filed with tribunal.The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) should have called for remand report from AO before rejecting the contentions of the assessee. 13.2 The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that

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

92,612/- and prayers were made that correct figures should be considered , although the assessee did not revise Form No. 36 filed with tribunal.The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) should have called for remand report from AO before rejecting the contentions of the assessee. 13.2 The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that

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

92,612/- and prayers were made that correct figures should be considered , although the assessee did not revise Form No. 36 filed with tribunal.The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) should have called for remand report from AO before rejecting the contentions of the assessee. 13.2 The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that

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

92,48,569/- in the facts and circumstances of the case. The order of C.I.T. (Appeal) is correct but the addition in part as maintained is highly unjustified. 2. That in any view of matter it is not correct to say that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

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

92,48,569/- in the facts and circumstances of the case. The order of C.I.T. (Appeal) is correct but the addition in part as maintained is highly unjustified. 2. That in any view of matter it is not correct to say that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

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

92,48,569/- in the facts and circumstances of the case. The order of C.I.T. (Appeal) is correct but the addition in part as maintained is highly unjustified. 2. That in any view of matter it is not correct to say that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

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

92,48,569/- in the facts and circumstances of the case. The order of C.I.T. (Appeal) is correct but the addition in part as maintained is highly unjustified. 2. That in any view of matter it is not correct to say that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

92,658/- or the sources thereof. He, therefore, found himself incapable of agreeing with the ld. AO to adopt the figures of purchases and sales taken in the trading account prepared her. The ld. CIT(A) pointed out that even the differences pointed out by the ld. AO relating to Mumbai branch went against her findings in the assessment order

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

92,658/- or the sources thereof. He, therefore, found himself incapable of agreeing with the ld. AO to adopt the figures of purchases and sales taken in the trading account prepared her. The ld. CIT(A) pointed out that even the differences pointed out by the ld. AO relating to Mumbai branch went against her findings in the assessment order