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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

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

10. We shall now take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 19/Alld/2020 for ay: 2012- 13. The grounds of appeals raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with tribunal reads as under:- “1. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts to confirm the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer

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

10. We shall now take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 19/Alld/2020 for ay: 2012- 13. The grounds of appeals raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with tribunal reads as under:- “1. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts to confirm the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer

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

10. We shall now take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 19/Alld/2020 for ay: 2012- 13. The grounds of appeals raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with tribunal reads as under:- “1. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts to confirm the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer

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

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-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

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.

1) dated 23.01.2021, in assessment proceedings for the AY 2018-19. 5. Because the learned AO as well as CIT(A) were not legally justified in making the addition of Rs.1.85 crores as unexplained investment for the purchase of property, under section 69 and charging the same to the penal rate of tax under section

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)

10,41,260 Less: Amount paid during the year 4,56,519 Balance carried forward 5,84,741 The provisions of Rs. 2,43,260/- made for the year under consideration has been added back by ourselves in computing our total income for the Assessment Year 1997-98 as is duly verifiable for the statement showing computation of (Page

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

10. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The first ground of appeal relates to the decision of the ld. CIT(A) to reject the plea of the assessee, that the provisions of section 153A restricted the scope of assessment to making additions on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during the course of search

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

10. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The first ground of appeal relates to the decision of the ld. CIT(A) to reject the plea of the assessee, that the provisions of section 153A restricted the scope of assessment to making additions on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during the course of search

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

10. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The first ground of appeal relates to the decision of the ld. CIT(A) to reject the plea of the assessee, that the provisions of section 153A restricted the scope of assessment to making additions on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during the course of search

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

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

10. 2021 Date of pronouncement: 14.10. 2021 O R D E R PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal, filed by assessee, being ITA No. 17/Alld/2020, is directed against an appellate order dated 19.11.2019 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Allahabad / 10883/ 2015-16 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Allahabad(hereinafter called "the CIT(A)"),for assessment

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

section 10(2)(vii) would be computed without making any deduction for depreciation for arriving at the written down value of the asset. 2. The Board considered that where it is proposed to estimate the profit and the prescribed particulars have been furnished by the assessee, the depreciation allowance should be separately worked out. In all such cases, the gross

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. BECAUSE the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining addition of Rs.93,08,207.53 on account of unsecured loans taken from Shri Umand Grover as unexplained money by invoking the provision of section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. BECAUSE the appellant has furnished the complete details of loan taken

M/SPANDEY TRANSPORT CO.,SONEBHADRA vs. ITO,, MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

1) of the Act. Therefore, when this objection was not raised by the assessee before the authorities below and not disputed the service of notice issued u/s.143(2) of the Act, then in view of the provisions of Section 292BB of the Act, the assessee cannot be allowed to dispute the service of notice issued u/s.143

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