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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

purchases and inflated expenses. She raised the question of the need of maintaining of the Deshawar account and held it was only a means of generating unaccounted money. In appeal, the assessee submitted that the Deshawar account had been maintained by the assessee overtime and recognized by the Department year after year and through this account, regular business expenditure

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

purchases and inflated expenses. She raised the question of the need of maintaining of the Deshawar account and held it was only a means of generating unaccounted money. In appeal, the assessee submitted that the Deshawar account had been maintained by the assessee overtime and recognized by the Department year after year and through this account, regular business expenditure

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

natural justice.” 3. It is observed that the appeal of the assessee is late. In this context, a condonation petition has been filed by Shri. J.N. Chourasia, who is the working partner of the assessee, accompanied by an affidavit. It has been submitted that he received the order dated 10.09.2019 on 11.01.2019 and was ready to come to Allahabad from

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

natural justice.” 3. It is observed that the appeal of the assessee is late. In this context, a condonation petition has been filed by Shri. J.N. Chourasia, who is the working partner of the assessee, accompanied by an affidavit. It has been submitted that he received the order dated 10.09.2019 on 11.01.2019 and was ready to come to Allahabad from

ROHIT,FAIZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, AMBEDKAR NAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Nikhil Choudharyi.T.A. No.102/Alld/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

purchased, there occurred loss during the year which is duly supported by books of account and other records which are maintained by the appellant. 7. BECAUSE the Id. Assessing Officer has erred in presuming closing stock of Rs.1,57,31,919/- as against nil stock, even the appellant has closed down his business after the month of September

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

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD vs. VIJAY STONE PRODUCT, 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(C.C.), 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

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

SUBHASH STONE PRODUCT (P) LTD.,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

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

M/S SUBHASH STONE PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED,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

M/S JAI MAA SHARDA SERVICE STATION,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, 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