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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

purchases pointing out that while Truck No. U.P. 70 X 9761 was registered in the name of the assessee, payments in respect of the same by Ms Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar , were being made in the name of M/s Amritsar Transport and thus bogus

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

purchases pointing out that while Truck No. U.P. 70 X 9761 was registered in the name of the assessee, payments in respect of the same by Ms Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar , were being made in the name of M/s Amritsar Transport and thus bogus

KESARWANI & C0,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

bogus expenditures. It was pointed out that the partners of the assessee firm had invested in the construction of building and purchase

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

bogus expenditures. It was pointed out that the partners of the assessee firm had invested in the construction of building and purchase

KESARWANI & C0.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT., ALLAHABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

bogus expenditures. It was pointed out that the partners of the assessee firm had invested in the construction of building and purchase

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

bogus liability of Rs. 10,23,406/- has been shown. The AO asked assessee to explain the aforesaid differences. The assessee submitted reconciliation chart as under: “ Opening Balance as on 1-4-2004(532870+14000) Cr. 5,46,870.00 Add: Net Purchases

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

bogus liability of Rs. 10,23,406/- has been shown. The AO asked assessee to explain the aforesaid differences. The assessee submitted reconciliation chart as under: “ Opening Balance as on 1-4-2004(532870+14000) Cr. 5,46,870.00 Add: Net Purchases

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

bogus liability of Rs. 10,23,406/- has been shown. The AO asked assessee to explain the aforesaid differences. The assessee submitted reconciliation chart as under: “ Opening Balance as on 1-4-2004(532870+14000) Cr. 5,46,870.00 Add: Net Purchases

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

bogus liability of Rs. 10,23,406/- has been shown. The AO asked assessee to explain the aforesaid differences. The assessee submitted reconciliation chart as under: “ Opening Balance as on 1-4-2004(532870+14000) Cr. 5,46,870.00 Add: Net Purchases

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

purchase and stock furnished by the dealer in order to avail higher cash credit limit and housing loan from the bank were correct, and where there was no evidence of any dealing by the dealer with any party outside of the books, the explanation of the dealer that it had filed a bogus

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

purchase and stock furnished by the dealer in order to avail higher cash credit limit and housing loan from the bank were correct, and where there was no evidence of any dealing by the dealer with any party outside of the books, the explanation of the dealer that it had filed a bogus

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

bogus liabilities is incorrect and the entire discussions in the relevant Para are contrary to the actual facts of the case when the appellant furnished documents and proofs also but the two lower authorities failed to consider the issue in appropriate manner hence the addition as made and confirmed is incorrect in the facts and circumstances of the case

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

bogus liabilities is incorrect and the entire discussions in the relevant Para are contrary to the actual facts of the case when the appellant furnished documents and proofs also but the two lower authorities failed to consider the issue in appropriate manner hence the addition as made and confirmed is incorrect in the facts and circumstances of the case

VIJAY STONE PRODUCT,SONEBHADRA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

purchase on 29.03.2004 which fall in assessment year 2004- 05 and the same was sold on 10.08.2005 which fall in assessment year 2006- 07 and the appellant shared 1/3rd comes to Rs.1,10,000/- but since there was no transaction made during the year addition is unwarranted and the entire working of assessing officer is incorrect. 7A. That

VIJAY STONE PRODUCT,SONEBHADRA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

purchase on 29.03.2004 which fall in assessment year 2004- 05 and the same was sold on 10.08.2005 which fall in assessment year 2006- 07 and the appellant shared 1/3rd comes to Rs.1,10,000/- but since there was no transaction made during the year addition is unwarranted and the entire working of assessing officer is incorrect. 7A. That

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD vs. VIJAY STONE PRODUCTS, SONEBHADRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

purchase on 29.03.2004 which fall in assessment year 2004- 05 and the same was sold on 10.08.2005 which fall in assessment year 2006- 07 and the appellant shared 1/3rd comes to Rs.1,10,000/- but since there was no transaction made during the year addition is unwarranted and the entire working of assessing officer is incorrect. 7A. That

RAMJI VAISH,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT(CC), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

purchase on 29.03.2004 which fall in assessment year 2004- 05 and the same was sold on 10.08.2005 which fall in assessment year 2006- 07 and the appellant shared 1/3rd comes to Rs.1,10,000/- but since there was no transaction made during the year addition is unwarranted and the entire working of assessing officer is incorrect. 7A. That

RAMJI VAISH,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, (CC), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

purchase on 29.03.2004 which fall in assessment year 2004- 05 and the same was sold on 10.08.2005 which fall in assessment year 2006- 07 and the appellant shared 1/3rd comes to Rs.1,10,000/- but since there was no transaction made during the year addition is unwarranted and the entire working of assessing officer is incorrect. 7A. That