ZILA SAHKARI BANK LTD,,MIRZAPUR vs. JT. C.I.T.,, MIRZAPUR

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

15%. The AO asked assessee to submit evidence. The assessee filed copies of bills totaling an amount of Rs. 1,53,793/- and these bills were for office furniture , which were purchased after September, 2009 . The AO allowed depreciation 5% (50% of the normal depreciation on Furniture @10% allowable under the provisions of 1961 Act) on these bill

ZILA SAHKARI BANK LTD.,MIRZAPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, MIRZAPUR

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

15%. The AO asked assessee to submit evidence. The assessee filed copies of bills totaling an amount of Rs. 1,53,793/- and these bills were for office furniture , which were purchased after September, 2009 . The AO allowed depreciation 5% (50% of the normal depreciation on Furniture @10% allowable under the provisions of 1961 Act) on these bill

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

Section 40(a)(ia) and 43B. It was submitted by ld. DR that the assessee has submitted details/evidences / explanations for the first time before ld. CIT(A) , and that the no remand report was called by CIT(A) from AO , which is in breach of Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962.The prayers were made

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

Section 40(a)(ia) and 43B. It was submitted by ld. DR that the assessee has submitted details/evidences / explanations for the first time before ld. CIT(A) , and that the no remand report was called by CIT(A) from AO , which is in breach of Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962.The prayers were made

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

Section 40(a)(ia) and 43B. It was submitted by ld. DR that the assessee has submitted details/evidences / explanations for the first time before ld. CIT(A) , and that the no remand report was called by CIT(A) from AO , which is in breach of Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962.The prayers were made

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 on WDV on these buildings annually, in accordance with explanation 5 of section 32 of the Act. Ground No.7 is decided accordingly. 12. With regard to the levy of tax under section 115BBE with respect to the unrecorded investment of Rs. 1.85 Crores in the purchase of the immovable property at M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad, we are inclined

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

15% on the air conditioner, bills of which are either in the name of Umang Grover or Umang Sarees. It was submitted that the depreciation of Rs.5,29,827/- be allowed. 6. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that in the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer, the assessee submitted

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

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

15. It is true that the company will have to pay interest on the money borrowed by it. But that cannot be a ground for exemption of interest earned by the company by utilizing the borrowed funds as its income. It was rightly pointed out in the case of Kedar Narain Singh v. CIT [1938] 6 ITR 157 (All.) that

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

15,98,850/- is bad both on the facts and in law. 2. That in any view of the matter the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in deciding the appeal ex- parte without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee and simply by applying Multiplan India case appeal was deciding which action is highly unjustified. 3. That in any views

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)

15 which is additional information as required under paragraphs 3, 4C and 4D of Part II of Schedule VI to the Companies Act,1956 (page 28/29 paper book) , wherein details of Raw Material Consumed is given as under: 6. RAW MATERIAL CONSUMED: (a) Sugarcane Qtls. 17,37,103 Value/Rs.12,46,84,200 (5,55,100) (4,38,10,023) Under

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

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

ACIT,, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S KESARWANI & CO., ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

section 145(3) to this extent and made an addition of Rs.1,00,000/- on this account, thereby giving the assessee relief of Rs.86,94,292/-. 3. The second issue in the Department’s appeal is the decision of the ld. CIT(A) to delete an addition of Rs.2,66,73,629/- on account of unaccounted purchases, without appreciating that

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

section 145(3) to this extent and made an addition of Rs.1,00,000/- on this account, thereby giving the assessee relief of Rs.86,94,292/-. 3. The second issue in the Department’s appeal is the decision of the ld. CIT(A) to delete an addition of Rs.2,66,73,629/- on account of unaccounted purchases, without appreciating that