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

7 concerns itself with disallowance of marketing expenses to the tune of 19,74,401/- made by the AO which disallowance of expenses stood reduced by ld. CIT(A) to Rs. 13,64,337/- , being additions made by invoking Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/s. Kesarwani Marketing Private Limited, Allahabad U.P. v. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle, Allahabad provisions

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

TDS of Rs. 20,789/- , under the old regime when GIR No. existed (impugned ay: 1993- 94) and no computerized record is available with department for which the Revenue is not able to give credit for such prepaid taxes , but these facts are appearing in income-tax computation form issued by Revenue, suffice would be for us to remind Revenue

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

In the result, both appeals i

94,99,990/-) and A.Y. 2008-09 (Rs. 8,49,81,648/-) the contract receipt of the assessee is not matched with receipt shown in 26AS and shown by assessee in its return. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee has shown Rs. 4,00,82,454/- as sales in Trading

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

In the result, both appeals i

94,99,990/-) and A.Y. 2008-09 (Rs. 8,49,81,648/-) the contract receipt of the assessee is not matched with receipt shown in 26AS and shown by assessee in its return. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee has shown Rs. 4,00,82,454/- as sales in Trading

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

THE HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION,ALLAHABAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee with tribunal in ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: N.A.

94-96. Reference is drawn to the provisions of Section 12AA which obligates/empowers ld. CIT(E) to make enquiries as to the genuineness of the activities and objects of the trust/institution seeking registration u/s 12A and the compliances of such requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the trust/institution as are material for achieving

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

section 145(3) to this extent and made an addition of Rs.1,00,000/- on this account, thereby giving the assessee relief of Rs.86,94,292/-. 3. The second issue in the Department’s appeal is the decision of the ld. CIT(A) to delete an addition of Rs.2,66,73,629/- on account of unaccounted purchases, without appreciating that

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

section 145(3) to this extent and made an addition of Rs.1,00,000/- on this account, thereby giving the assessee relief of Rs.86,94,292/-. 3. The second issue in the Department’s appeal is the decision of the ld. CIT(A) to delete an addition of Rs.2,66,73,629/- on account of unaccounted purchases, without appreciating 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

94,908.00 Enclosed JV dated 31.03.2012 & Ledger of Pre- operative Expenses of Plant 1 operative Exp. Page 126/123 Discount allowed to Bawa Float Glass Ltd 8,22,740.00 Copy of Credit Note enclosed Page 127 Interest provided on U.P. Safety Glass 5,90,985.59 Page 126 I.C.D. upto 31.03.2011 73,01,827.59 5.2 The ld. CIT(A) rejected the contentions

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

94,908.00 Enclosed JV dated 31.03.2012 & Ledger of Pre- operative Expenses of Plant 1 operative Exp. Page 126/123 Discount allowed to Bawa Float Glass Ltd 8,22,740.00 Copy of Credit Note enclosed Page 127 Interest provided on U.P. Safety Glass 5,90,985.59 Page 126 I.C.D. upto 31.03.2011 73,01,827.59 5.2 The ld. CIT(A) rejected the contentions

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

94,908.00 Enclosed JV dated 31.03.2012 & Ledger of Pre- operative Expenses of Plant 1 operative Exp. Page 126/123 Discount allowed to Bawa Float Glass Ltd 8,22,740.00 Copy of Credit Note enclosed Page 127 Interest provided on U.P. Safety Glass 5,90,985.59 Page 126 I.C.D. upto 31.03.2011 73,01,827.59 5.2 The ld. CIT(A) rejected the contentions