ACIT CIRCLE-2, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S SHERWANI SUGAR SYNDICATE LTD., ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 1997-98 The Assistant Commissioner Of V. M/S Shervani Sugar Syndicate Income-Tax, Circle-2, Ltd., Allahabad, U.P. 28, South Road , Allahabad,U.P. Pan/Gir: 19-653-Cv-3480 New Pan: Not Available (Appellant) (Respondent)

39,000/- on a/c of unclaimed deposits/loan and Rs. 1049/- on a/c of interest thereon, without properly appreciating the facts and law. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 48,172/- without appreciating the Assessing Office’s finding that no proof regarding such payment had been filed with the return of income filed

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

purchases, sales and closing stock for each unit from financial year 2005-06 till FY 2009-10. However the AO rejected the explanation of the assessee, on the grounds that this explanation was furnished only when the error was noticed by the Department and because no books of lapse on the part of the auditor. Therefore, he rejected the reconciliation

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

purchases, sales and closing stock for each unit from financial year 2005-06 till FY 2009-10. However the AO rejected the explanation of the assessee, on the grounds that this explanation was furnished only when the error was noticed by the Department and because no books of lapse on the part of the auditor. Therefore, he rejected the reconciliation

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

purchases, sales and closing stock for each unit from financial year 2005-06 till FY 2009-10. However the AO rejected the explanation of the assessee, on the grounds that this explanation was furnished only when the error was noticed by the Department and because no books of lapse on the part of the auditor. Therefore, he rejected the reconciliation

M/S BHOLA FOOD PRODUCTS(P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT. CIT,(OSD),, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee for ay: 2005-06 and 2009-10

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

purchasing gifts as per sale promotion scheme was made in subsequent year, which ledger is placed in PB at pages 32 to 39. It was submitted by ld. Counsel for the assessee before the Bench that the AO treated these expenses as bogus expenses , while ld. CIT(A) has treated the same as contingent and provisions not made properly

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

39,256.00 made by the assessing officer as per Para 6 of the assessment order and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as per Para 9.2 of his order is highly unjustified in so far as it is not correct to say that the assessee claimed bogus 2 ITA No.159/Alld./2013, 76/Alld./2013, 77/Alld/2013 & 78/Alld/2013 Assessment Year

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

39,256.00 made by the assessing officer as per Para 6 of the assessment order and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as per Para 9.2 of his order is highly unjustified in so far as it is not correct to say that the assessee claimed bogus 2 ITA No.159/Alld./2013, 76/Alld./2013, 77/Alld/2013 & 78/Alld/2013 Assessment Year

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

39,256.00 made by the assessing officer as per Para 6 of the assessment order and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as per Para 9.2 of his order is highly unjustified in so far as it is not correct to say that the assessee claimed bogus 2 ITA No.159/Alld./2013, 76/Alld./2013, 77/Alld/2013 & 78/Alld/2013 Assessment Year

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

39,256.00 made by the assessing officer as per Para 6 of the assessment order and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as per Para 9.2 of his order is highly unjustified in so far as it is not correct to say that the assessee claimed bogus 2 ITA No.159/Alld./2013, 76/Alld./2013, 77/Alld/2013 & 78/Alld/2013 Assessment Year

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

bogus gist and his action as confirmed by CIT(A) is totally incorrect without considering the fact and evidence placed on record so both the lower authorities acted in arbitrary manner and confirmed the addition which is highly unjustified. 9. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.2,80,000/-made as per discussion in para

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

bogus gist and his action as confirmed by CIT(A) is totally incorrect without considering the fact and evidence placed on record so both the lower authorities acted in arbitrary manner and confirmed the addition which is highly unjustified. 9. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.2,80,000/-made as per discussion in para

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

bogus gist and his action as confirmed by CIT(A) is totally incorrect without considering the fact and evidence placed on record so both the lower authorities acted in arbitrary manner and confirmed the addition which is highly unjustified. 9. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.2,80,000/-made as per discussion in para

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

bogus gist and his action as confirmed by CIT(A) is totally incorrect without considering the fact and evidence placed on record so both the lower authorities acted in arbitrary manner and confirmed the addition which is highly unjustified. 9. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.2,80,000/-made as per discussion in para

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

bogus gist and his action as confirmed by CIT(A) is totally incorrect without considering the fact and evidence placed on record so both the lower authorities acted in arbitrary manner and confirmed the addition which is highly unjustified. 9. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.2,80,000/-made as per discussion in para

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

bogus gist and his action as confirmed by CIT(A) is totally incorrect without considering the fact and evidence placed on record so both the lower authorities acted in arbitrary manner and confirmed the addition which is highly unjustified. 9. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.2,80,000/-made as per discussion in para

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

bogus gist and his action as confirmed by CIT(A) is totally incorrect without considering the fact and evidence placed on record so both the lower authorities acted in arbitrary manner and confirmed the addition which is highly unjustified. 9. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.2,80,000/-made as per discussion in para

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

bogus gist and his action as confirmed by CIT(A) is totally incorrect without considering the fact and evidence placed on record so both the lower authorities acted in arbitrary manner and confirmed the addition which is highly unjustified. 9. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.2,80,000/-made as per discussion in para

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

bogus gist and his action as confirmed by CIT(A) is totally incorrect without considering the fact and evidence placed on record so both the lower authorities acted in arbitrary manner and confirmed the addition which is highly unjustified. 9. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.2,80,000/-made as per discussion in para