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

setting aside this matter to the file of AO for verification of facts and quantum of allowability of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation, and while allowing the carry forward of business losses , the AO shall also verify that the return of income was filed by assesseein time within due date prescribed u/s 139(1) for those years

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

In the result, both appeals i

loss account. The ld. AO considered the submissions of the assessee, but did not them to be convincing. He pointed out that the assessee’s AR could not explain the six credits made through the TDS certificate submitted by the assessee and observed if it was payments towards purchases, then the amounts must tally with the amounts of Rs.3

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

In the result, both appeals i

loss account. The ld. AO considered the submissions of the assessee, but did not them to be convincing. He pointed out that the assessee’s AR could not explain the six credits made through the TDS certificate submitted by the assessee and observed if it was payments towards purchases, then the amounts must tally with the amounts of Rs.3

M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Deora Electric Works V. The Jcit 58-A, Sardar Patel Marg Range – I Allahabad Allahabad Pan:Aadfd7479B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 03 2025 O R D E R

TDS, it was submitted that the same was not made according to the bonafide belief that tax deduction was not required for the amounts below Rs.50,000/-. Regarding the payments disallowable under section 40A(3) of the Act, it was submitted that these were made after office hours at various sites. Regarding the difference in amount of bank guarantee

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

loss account the said audit report showed interest income to be Rs. 8,54,284/- and the assessee could not reconcile the discrepancy with documentary evidences in any proceedings. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), Allahabad has erred on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,37,000/- on account of three payments to contractors on which TDS

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

loss account as the said amount relates to business expenditure paid to distributor for business promotion therefore the provision of TDSare at all not applicable hence the addition as maintained is unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 13,64,337.00 was maintained by the Commissioner

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

loss account as the said amount relates to business expenditure paid to distributor for business promotion therefore the provision of TDSare at all not applicable hence the addition as maintained is unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 13,64,337.00 was maintained by the Commissioner

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

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

loss account of the assessee and made additions to the tune of Rs. 3,08,98,592/- to the income of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) upheld/sustained the additions with respect to purchases to the tune of Rs. 3,08,98,592/- on the grounds that the assessee failed to brought on record evidences for purchases such as purchase

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

loss account of the assessee and made additions to the tune of Rs. 3,08,98,592/- to the income of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) upheld/sustained the additions with respect to purchases to the tune of Rs. 3,08,98,592/- on the grounds that the assessee failed to brought on record evidences for purchases such as purchase

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

loss account of the assessee and made additions to the tune of Rs. 3,08,98,592/- to the income of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) upheld/sustained the additions with respect to purchases to the tune of Rs. 3,08,98,592/- on the grounds that the assessee failed to brought on record evidences for purchases such as purchase

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

loss account of the assessee and made additions to the tune of Rs. 3,08,98,592/- to the income of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) upheld/sustained the additions with respect to purchases to the tune of Rs. 3,08,98,592/- on the grounds that the assessee failed to brought on record evidences for purchases such as purchase

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

set of invoices was prepared by M/s Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Sahson, Allahabad. One was for the Central Excise called the excise invoice and the other was for Sales Tax purposes which were known as the tax invoice. It was submitted that the description and final value of goods in both the invoices, remained the same. It was further submitted that

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

set of invoices was prepared by M/s Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Sahson, Allahabad. One was for the Central Excise called the excise invoice and the other was for Sales Tax purposes which were known as the tax invoice. It was submitted that the description and final value of goods in both the invoices, remained the same. It was further submitted that

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. M/S N CHAURASIA ASSOCIATES, , SONEBHADRA (AAJFM0374N)

In the result, while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed the appeal of the Department is held to be allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S N. Chaurasia Associates, Income Tax, Circle-3, Mirzapur Shaktinagar, Sonebhadra Pan:Aajfm0374N (Appellant) (Respondent) & A.Y. 2014-15 M/S N. Chaurasia Associates, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Khadia Bazar, Shaktinagar, Tax, Circle-Iii, Mirzapur Sonebhadra Pan:Aajfm0374N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Navin C. Agrawal, C.A. & Ms. Nita Goyal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals For Have Both Been Filed Against The Order Under Section 250 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Allahabad On 10.01.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue In Ita No. 41/Alld/2019, Are As Under:- "Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Has Not Erred In Allowing The Relief Of Rs. 6,51,65,031/- By Accepting The Assessee'S Statement That The Receipts Are From Its Business Activity In Civil Construction Without Any Verifiable A.Y. 2014-15 M/S N. Chaurasia Associates

set aside and that order dated 15.12.2016 of the Assessing Officer may kindly be restored.” 2. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 29/Alld/2019 are as under:- “1. Because the CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in taking the turnover at Rs.12,54,42,478 instead

M/S N CHAURASIA ASSOCIATES,,SONEBHADRA vs. ACIT,, MIRZAPUR

In the result, while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed the appeal of the Department is held to be allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S N. Chaurasia Associates, Income Tax, Circle-3, Mirzapur Shaktinagar, Sonebhadra Pan:Aajfm0374N (Appellant) (Respondent) & A.Y. 2014-15 M/S N. Chaurasia Associates, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Khadia Bazar, Shaktinagar, Tax, Circle-Iii, Mirzapur Sonebhadra Pan:Aajfm0374N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Navin C. Agrawal, C.A. & Ms. Nita Goyal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals For Have Both Been Filed Against The Order Under Section 250 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Allahabad On 10.01.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue In Ita No. 41/Alld/2019, Are As Under:- "Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Has Not Erred In Allowing The Relief Of Rs. 6,51,65,031/- By Accepting The Assessee'S Statement That The Receipts Are From Its Business Activity In Civil Construction Without Any Verifiable A.Y. 2014-15 M/S N. Chaurasia Associates

set aside and that order dated 15.12.2016 of the Assessing Officer may kindly be restored.” 2. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 29/Alld/2019 are as under:- “1. Because the CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in taking the turnover at Rs.12,54,42,478 instead

DEEPAK AUTO SALES KUNDA PRATAPGARH,PRATAPGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER PRATAPGARH, PRATAPGARH

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

TDS. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), vide impugned appellate order dated 29/03/20225 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved further, the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed