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

unexplained investment in immovable property is highly unjustified. Likewise the transaction as considered during the year is uncalled for in the facts of the circumstances of the case. 7. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.3,26,400/-made and maintained by the two lower authorities without considering the relevant document filed in the paper book

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

unexplained investment in immovable property is highly unjustified. Likewise the transaction as considered during the year is uncalled for in the facts of the circumstances of the case. 7. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.3,26,400/-made and maintained by the two lower authorities without considering the relevant document filed in the paper book

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

unexplained investment in immovable property is highly unjustified. Likewise the transaction as considered during the year is uncalled for in the facts of the circumstances of the case. 7. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.3,26,400/-made and maintained by the two lower authorities without considering the relevant document filed in the paper book

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

unexplained investment in immovable property is highly unjustified. Likewise the transaction as considered during the year is uncalled for in the facts of the circumstances of the case. 7. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.3,26,400/-made and maintained by the two lower authorities without considering the relevant document filed in the paper book

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

unexplained investment in immovable property is highly unjustified. Likewise the transaction as considered during the year is uncalled for in the facts of the circumstances of the case. 7. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.3,26,400/-made and maintained by the two lower authorities without considering the relevant document filed in the paper book

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

unexplained investment in immovable property is highly unjustified. Likewise the transaction as considered during the year is uncalled for in the facts of the circumstances of the case. 7. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.3,26,400/-made and maintained by the two lower authorities without considering the relevant document filed in the paper book

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

unexplained investment in immovable property is highly unjustified. Likewise the transaction as considered during the year is uncalled for in the facts of the circumstances of the case. 7. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.3,26,400/-made and maintained by the two lower authorities without considering the relevant document filed in the paper book

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

unexplained investment in immovable property is highly unjustified. Likewise the transaction as considered during the year is uncalled for in the facts of the circumstances of the case. 7. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.3,26,400/-made and maintained by the two lower authorities without considering the relevant document filed in the paper book

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

unexplained investment in immovable property is highly unjustified. Likewise the transaction as considered during the year is uncalled for in the facts of the circumstances of the case. 7. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.3,26,400/-made and maintained by the two lower authorities without considering the relevant document filed in the paper book

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

unexplained investment in immovable property is highly unjustified. Likewise the transaction as considered during the year is uncalled for in the facts of the circumstances of the case. 7. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.3,26,400/-made and maintained by the two lower authorities without considering the relevant document filed in the paper book

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

unexplained investment in immovable property is highly unjustified. Likewise the transaction as considered during the year is uncalled for in the facts of the circumstances of the case. 7. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.3,26,400/-made and maintained by the two lower authorities without considering the relevant document filed in the paper book

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

unexplained investment in immovable property is highly unjustified. Likewise the transaction as considered during the year is uncalled for in the facts of the circumstances of the case. 7. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.3,26,400/-made and maintained by the two lower authorities without considering the relevant document filed in the paper book

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

unexplained investment in immovable property is highly unjustified. Likewise the transaction as considered during the year is uncalled for in the facts of the circumstances of the case. 7. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.3,26,400/-made and maintained by the two lower authorities without considering the relevant document filed in the paper book

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

unexplained investment in immovable property is highly unjustified. Likewise the transaction as considered during the year is uncalled for in the facts of the circumstances of the case. 7. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.3,26,400/-made and maintained by the two lower authorities without considering the relevant document filed in the paper book

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

unexplained investment in immovable property is highly unjustified. Likewise the transaction as considered during the year is uncalled for in the facts of the circumstances of the case. 7. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.3,26,400/-made and maintained by the two lower authorities without considering the relevant document filed in the paper book

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

unexplained investment in immovable property is highly unjustified. Likewise the transaction as considered during the year is uncalled for in the facts of the circumstances of the case. 7. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.3,26,400/-made and maintained by the two lower authorities without considering the relevant document filed in the paper book

ACIT,, ALLAHABAD vs. KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

purchase, sales, opening and closing stock has been accepted. In this regard a chart is enclosed in paper book and photo copy of same is enclosed herewith for your kind consideration. (g) That it is also a fact that in the course of survey proceeding u/s 133A in assessment year 1999-2000 as well as in search proceeding

M/S KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

purchase, sales, opening and closing stock has been accepted. In this regard a chart is enclosed in paper book and photo copy of same is enclosed herewith for your kind consideration. (g) That it is also a fact that in the course of survey proceeding u/s 133A in assessment year 1999-2000 as well as in search proceeding

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

invested in shares of related company interest was liable to be disallowed under section 36(1)(iii). Observing that the assessee had unsecured loans amounting to Rs.2,38,32,073/- and interest on capital amounting to Rs.31,94,098/- had been paid, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the decision of the ld. AO to disallow interest of Rs.33,520/-. Finally