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

depreciation of Rs. 3,26,446/- which has resulted net income from business and profession as loss of Rs. 7,63,940/-. The said return of income was processed by the CPC, vide order dated 11.08.2022 whereby an adjustment of Rs. 15,21,057/- was made as per Sr. No. 23 of annexure to computation of income from business

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

8. Aggrieved with these disallowances that had been sustained by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. AR’) appeared on behalf of the assessee and argued the case. At the very outset, the ld. AR submitted that he was not pressing ground no. 6 on account

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

8. Aggrieved with these disallowances that had been sustained by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. AR’) appeared on behalf of the assessee and argued the case. At the very outset, the ld. AR submitted that he was not pressing ground no. 6 on account

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

8. Aggrieved with these disallowances that had been sustained by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. AR’) appeared on behalf of the assessee and argued the case. At the very outset, the ld. AR submitted that he was not pressing ground no. 6 on account

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

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

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

8. Ground No.3 of the assessee’s appeal relates to disallowance of interest of Rs.32,116/- to non-bearing sundry creditors without considering the facts of the case and the decision of the courts on this issue. This ground was subsequently not pressed by the ld. AR before us and therefore does not require further discussion. 9. Both the Department

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

8. Ground No.3 of the assessee’s appeal relates to disallowance of interest of Rs.32,116/- to non-bearing sundry creditors without considering the facts of the case and the decision of the courts on this issue. This ground was subsequently not pressed by the ld. AR before us and therefore does not require further discussion. 9. Both the Department