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

section 145(3) and rejecting books of account and estimating turnover of Rs.9,00,00,000/- (as against disclosed turnover of Rs.6,79,26,750/-) and applying GP Rate of 0.50% thereby working out profit of Rs.3,53,236/- as against disclosed loss of Rs.1,59,80,157/- during the year. 6. BECAUSE estimation of G.P' Rate

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 2 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 expenses and the allegation that the appellant failed to reconcile the differences between audited account and seized trial balance is not correct hence the addition as made

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 2 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 expenses and the allegation that the appellant failed to reconcile the differences between audited account and seized trial balance is not correct hence the addition as made

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 2 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 expenses and the allegation that the appellant failed to reconcile the differences between audited account and seized trial balance is not correct hence the addition as made

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 2 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 expenses and the allegation that the appellant failed to reconcile the differences between audited account and seized trial balance is not correct hence the addition as made

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

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 & 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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