VINOD KUMAR TANDON,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT(CPC),, BEGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

1) however, since there is a delay as per the respective acts governing the PF and ESI, therefore, the issue is now settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Supra) in paragraph nos. 31 to 55 as under:- “31. Section 43B falls in Part

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

depreciation allowance u/s 32(1), than, inter-alia, subject to provisions of Section 72(2), the unabsorbed depreciation of the current

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

depreciation allowance u/s 32(1), than, inter-alia, subject to provisions of Section 72(2), the unabsorbed depreciation of the current

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3) , ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

depreciation allowance u/s 32(1), than, inter-alia, subject to provisions of Section 72(2), the unabsorbed depreciation of the current

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. M/S N CHAURASIA ASSOCIATES, , SONEBHADRA (AAJFM0374N)

In the result, while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed the appeal of the Department is held to be allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S N. Chaurasia Associates, Income Tax, Circle-3, Mirzapur Shaktinagar, Sonebhadra Pan:Aajfm0374N (Appellant) (Respondent) & A.Y. 2014-15 M/S N. Chaurasia Associates, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Khadia Bazar, Shaktinagar, Tax, Circle-Iii, Mirzapur Sonebhadra Pan:Aajfm0374N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Navin C. Agrawal, C.A. & Ms. Nita Goyal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals For Have Both Been Filed Against The Order Under Section 250 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Allahabad On 10.01.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue In Ita No. 41/Alld/2019, Are As Under:- "Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Has Not Erred In Allowing The Relief Of Rs. 6,51,65,031/- By Accepting The Assessee'S Statement That The Receipts Are From Its Business Activity In Civil Construction Without Any Verifiable A.Y. 2014-15 M/S N. Chaurasia Associates

1) and total income was determined at Rs.18,07,570/-. On 18.02.2015, an income tax refund was issued. Thereafter, on 1.08.2015, the assessee filed a revised return electronically at the same returned income of Rs.18,07,570/-, but showing contract receipts of Rs.12,54,42,278.15/-. This case was subsequently picked up for scrutiny by way of issue of notice

M/S N CHAURASIA ASSOCIATES,,SONEBHADRA vs. ACIT,, MIRZAPUR

In the result, while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed the appeal of the Department is held to be allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S N. Chaurasia Associates, Income Tax, Circle-3, Mirzapur Shaktinagar, Sonebhadra Pan:Aajfm0374N (Appellant) (Respondent) & A.Y. 2014-15 M/S N. Chaurasia Associates, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Khadia Bazar, Shaktinagar, Tax, Circle-Iii, Mirzapur Sonebhadra Pan:Aajfm0374N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Navin C. Agrawal, C.A. & Ms. Nita Goyal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals For Have Both Been Filed Against The Order Under Section 250 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Allahabad On 10.01.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue In Ita No. 41/Alld/2019, Are As Under:- "Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Has Not Erred In Allowing The Relief Of Rs. 6,51,65,031/- By Accepting The Assessee'S Statement That The Receipts Are From Its Business Activity In Civil Construction Without Any Verifiable A.Y. 2014-15 M/S N. Chaurasia Associates

1) and total income was determined at Rs.18,07,570/-. On 18.02.2015, an income tax refund was issued. Thereafter, on 1.08.2015, the assessee filed a revised return electronically at the same returned income of Rs.18,07,570/-, but showing contract receipts of Rs.12,54,42,278.15/-. This case was subsequently picked up for scrutiny by way of issue of notice

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)

Section 43B in such a scenario as ultimately, the assessee will be claiming depreciation u/s 32 of the 1961 Act on the interest being capitalized , even though presently as claimed by assessee, the interest is capitalized by debiting to Capital Work in progress and not debited presently to P&L Account(which also requires verification ) . Since, all these aspects were

RAJESH KUMAR JAISWAL,,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY/ACIT(CENTRAL), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: the query raised by the assessing authority vide questionnaire issued under section 142 (1) dated 23.01.2021, in assessment proceedings for the AY 2018-19.

depreciation under section 32(1) would have been claimed by the assessee on the said properties and the ld. AO would

BRAJESH AGRAWAL,PRAYAGRAJ vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2021-22 Brajesh Agrawal, V. Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru 3/15, Patrika Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad, U.P. Pan-Acbpa3797R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Saurabh Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.03.2023 O R D E R

1,77,930/- after claiming the deductions under sections 80C, 80TTA, 80D and exempt income under section 10 of the Income Tax Act. In the return of income, the assessee has declared business loss of Rs. 7,63,940/- and income from house property of Rs. 7,88,200/-. The assessee has also declared income from other sources

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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, with regard to the disallowance of Rs.8,70,985/- under the head diesel

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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, with regard to the disallowance of Rs.8,70,985/- under the head diesel

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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, with regard to the disallowance of Rs.8,70,985/- under the head diesel

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

Section 37(1) of the 1961 Act. The assessee is directed to submit all AY-2005-06 & 2009-10 relevant details/documents before the AO during the course of denovo assessment proceedings before the AO for determination of this issue. Needless to say that the AO shall provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with

COMMERCIAL AUTO SALES PVT.LTD,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee with tribunal in ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

depreciation on net amount remaining in ‘Block of Asset’ after reducing the sale proceed of vehicle sold , and hence it was fairly submitted by ld. Counsel for the assessee that this claim of allowing deduction towards ‘loss on sale of vehicle’ as deduction from business income is not legally tenable in view of provision of Section 32(1

MEJA URJA NIGAM (P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD-2 (2), ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for ay: 2015-16 and 2016-17

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

1) of that section provides that in case, interest is paid on share capital issued for the purpose of raising money to defray the expenses of constructing any work or building or the provision of any plant in contingencies mentioned in that section, the sums so paid by way of interest may be charged to capital as part

SHREE SUDHAKAR PANDEY,SONBHEDRA vs. ACIT RANGE-III,, MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Sudhakar Pandey, Civil Line, V Acit, Robertsganj, Sonebhadra, Uttar Pradesh- . Range-Iii, Mirzapur, U.P. 231216 Pan-Alds03711B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Adv Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/12/2021 O R D E R

1. Numerous instances have come to the notice of the Board where assessee’s claim for depreciation duly shown in the return was not considered by the Income-tax Officer because books of account produced were not properly maintained and it was necessary to estimate profits by invoking the proviso to section

POOJA GROVER,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CIR-2,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

1) of the Act were issued from time to time. The Assessing Officer passed assessment order under section 143(3) of the Acton 30/12/2019 and assessed total income of the assessee at Rs.1,28,33,042/- after making addition of Rs.1,02,97,095/- on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and Rs.5

MOHD. SULAMAN FAROOQUI ,PRATAPGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PRATAPGARH

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

depreciation by disallowing 10% of expenses claimed is highly unjustified. 6. That in any view of the mater addition of Rs, 11,18,805/- out of cash deposit in bank account is highly unjustified and the Assessing officer was wrong in invoking the p0rovisiojn of Section 68 of the Act hence the entire actin is bad in law. 7. That