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

11,18,900/- vide his assessment order dated 27.03.2015. A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 The assessee company filed a petition for Rectification u/s 154 of the Act for rectification of mistake apparent from record i.e. set off of current year losses from the brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation not allowed by the AO. while computing the taxable income

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

11,18,900/- vide his assessment order dated 27.03.2015. A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 The assessee company filed a petition for Rectification u/s 154 of the Act for rectification of mistake apparent from record i.e. set off of current year losses from the brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation not allowed by the AO. while computing the taxable income

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

11,18,900/- vide his assessment order dated 27.03.2015. A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 The assessee company filed a petition for Rectification u/s 154 of the Act for rectification of mistake apparent from record i.e. set off of current year losses from the brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation not allowed by the AO. while computing the taxable income

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)

11,168/- Neoli Sugar 2.) Loan for IRBI (Solvent) Rs. 1,31,096/- Solvent Oil 3.) Loan for IRBI (Sugar) Rs. 2,08,379/- Sugar 4.) FITL from IRBI(solvent) Rs. 23,370/- 5.) Loan from SDFI Rs. 5,84,741/- 6.) Loan from SDF – II Rs. 35,80,396/- 28 Assessment Year: 1997-98 Shervani Sugar Syndicate Limited

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

depreciation was not as poor as what was reflected by the ld. AO because of the higher turnover displayed by the assessee in its revised return and furthermore ,the assessee had quoted low rate of execution of contract to get greater business and therefore, there was a depression in the amount of net profit. No adverse inference should therefore

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

depreciation was not as poor as what was reflected by the ld. AO because of the higher turnover displayed by the assessee in its revised return and furthermore ,the assessee had quoted low rate of execution of contract to get greater business and therefore, there was a depression in the amount of net profit. No adverse inference should therefore

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), before responding to the ld. AO. The very fact that the assessee paid the tax before the specific query was raised, went to show his bona fides. Accordingly, section 69 was not applicable and therefore, that should not be levied under section 115BBE. 11. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The first issue

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

11,26,000.00 Interest on PPF 3,41,127.00 Interest on S.B. A/c 30,185.00 Interest on FDR 2,771.32 Dividend Received 4,713.89 Interest on Bonds 16,260.00 Total (Rs.) 15,21,057.21 without considering the fact that aforesaid sum/income had already been offered to taxation by the appellant in his original return of income filed under section

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved.” Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the ground no. 1 is accordingly allowed and would govern our appreciation of the individual additions made in the course of assessment. 11. Ground no.2 relates to addition

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved.” Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the ground no. 1 is accordingly allowed and would govern our appreciation of the individual additions made in the course of assessment. 11. Ground no.2 relates to addition

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved.” Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the ground no. 1 is accordingly allowed and would govern our appreciation of the individual additions made in the course of assessment. 11. Ground no.2 relates to addition

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

11. 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

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

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

11 made payments to assessee was not sufficient to discharge burden placed on assessee by section 68. Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Gayathri Associates vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad held that assessee was expected to establish proof of identity of creditors, capacity of creditors and genuineness of creditors in order to discharge onus cast

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

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

11. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case. At the very outset, it is pertinent to point out that this is an assessment under section 143(3), covering the final year of the search, where no previous assessment or processing has taken place, since the return was filed after the date of search and therefore