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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

10,59,878/- taken by the ld. AO while the sales were at Rs.26,82,38,594/- against sales of Rs. 26,52,92,658/- taken by the ld. AO. Furthermore, the gross profit declared by the assessee was Rs.1,40,08,718/- as against the GP of Rs.1,27,40,535/- worked

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

10,59,878/- taken by the ld. AO while the sales were at Rs.26,82,38,594/- against sales of Rs. 26,52,92,658/- taken by the ld. AO. Furthermore, the gross profit declared by the assessee was Rs.1,40,08,718/- as against the GP of Rs.1,27,40,535/- worked

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

purchased for M/s Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar by its own truck in the name of Amritsar Transport Company. She, therefore, held that the name of the transporter had only been used for claiming bogus expenses under the head freight, by the sister concern. Accordingly, She disallowed the diesel expenses amounting to Rs.8,70,985/-. In appeal, the assessee submitted that

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

purchased for M/s Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar by its own truck in the name of Amritsar Transport Company. She, therefore, held that the name of the transporter had only been used for claiming bogus expenses under the head freight, by the sister concern. Accordingly, She disallowed the diesel expenses amounting to Rs.8,70,985/-. In appeal, the assessee submitted that

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

purchased for M/s Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar by its own truck in the name of Amritsar Transport Company. She, therefore, held that the name of the transporter had only been used for claiming bogus expenses under the head freight, by the sister concern. Accordingly, She disallowed the diesel expenses amounting to Rs.8,70,985/-. In appeal, the assessee submitted that

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

purchased towards furniture and fixtures and renovation at Nayaganj Office. It was submitted that the AO made additions to the tune of Rs. 10,13,575/- (Rs.9,71,888+Rs.41,687/-) which is the entire amount of payments made as mentioned in this seized document LP-1/4 page 155,which is placed at page 26 of the paper book

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

purchased towards furniture and fixtures and renovation at Nayaganj Office. It was submitted that the AO made additions to the tune of Rs. 10,13,575/- (Rs.9,71,888+Rs.41,687/-) which is the entire amount of payments made as mentioned in this seized document LP-1/4 page 155,which is placed at page 26 of the paper book

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

38 ITD 320 (Del). 2. BECAUSE after closure of business in the assessment year 2012-13 due to heavy losses, the appellant had no income liable for taxation, thereafter, he was not filing any return and the e-mail address as also the mobile number belongs to his tax consultant at that time and no information was received regarding

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

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