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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

purchases to the tune of Rs.1,71,64,492/-. With regard to the addition of Rs.95,9,136/- on account of mismatch of invoices issued by M/s Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar and the invoices entered in the goods receipt register of M/s Kesarwani and Co., we observe that the ld. CIT(A) has examined the issue in depth and come

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

purchases to the tune of Rs.1,71,64,492/-. With regard to the addition of Rs.95,9,136/- on account of mismatch of invoices issued by M/s Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar and the invoices entered in the goods receipt register of M/s Kesarwani and Co., we observe that the ld. CIT(A) has examined the issue in depth and come

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 & 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

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 expenses. Further , the AO observed that charity and donation expenses claimed of Rs. 5,602/- are not allowable expenses and were disallowed ITA No.159/Alld./2013, 76/Alld./2013, 77/Alld/2013 & 78/Alld/2013 Assessment Year: 2005-06,2006-07,2007-08 & 2008-09 M/s. Kesarwani Marketing Private Limited,Allahabad U.P. v. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle, Allahabad by the AO , vide assessment order dated

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 expenses. Further , the AO observed that charity and donation expenses claimed of Rs. 5,602/- are not allowable expenses and were disallowed ITA No.159/Alld./2013, 76/Alld./2013, 77/Alld/2013 & 78/Alld/2013 Assessment Year: 2005-06,2006-07,2007-08 & 2008-09 M/s. Kesarwani Marketing Private Limited,Allahabad U.P. v. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle, Allahabad by the AO , vide assessment order dated

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 expenses. Further , the AO observed that charity and donation expenses claimed of Rs. 5,602/- are not allowable expenses and were disallowed ITA No.159/Alld./2013, 76/Alld./2013, 77/Alld/2013 & 78/Alld/2013 Assessment Year: 2005-06,2006-07,2007-08 & 2008-09 M/s. Kesarwani Marketing Private Limited,Allahabad U.P. v. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle, Allahabad by the AO , vide assessment order dated

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 expenses. Further , the AO observed that charity and donation expenses claimed of Rs. 5,602/- are not allowable expenses and were disallowed ITA No.159/Alld./2013, 76/Alld./2013, 77/Alld/2013 & 78/Alld/2013 Assessment Year: 2005-06,2006-07,2007-08 & 2008-09 M/s. Kesarwani Marketing Private Limited,Allahabad U.P. v. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle, Allahabad by the AO , vide assessment order dated

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

section 40(a) (ia) as invoked is not correct as the said provision is not applicable at all hence the action of two lower authorities are incorrect. 3. That in any view of the matter the nature of expenditure is marketing expenses incurred by the assessee company is towards reimbursement of payment made by distributors appointed by the company hence

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

section 40(a) (ia) as invoked is not correct as the said provision is not applicable at all hence the action of two lower authorities are incorrect. 3. That in any view of the matter the nature of expenditure is marketing expenses incurred by the assessee company is towards reimbursement of payment made by distributors appointed by the company hence

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

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

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

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