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

3) read with Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act , assessed income of the assessee at Rs. 27,20,480/-. The AO denied the benefit of set off of brought forwardbusiness losses of earlier years and un- absorbed depreciation

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

3. It is observed that the appeal of the assessee is late. In this context, a condonation petition has been filed by Shri. J.N. Chourasia, who is the working partner of the assessee, accompanied by an affidavit. It has been submitted that he received the order dated 10.09.2019 on 11.01.2019 and was ready to come to Allahabad from (Sonebhadra

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

3. It is observed that the appeal of the assessee is late. In this context, a condonation petition has been filed by Shri. J.N. Chourasia, who is the working partner of the assessee, accompanied by an affidavit. It has been submitted that he received the order dated 10.09.2019 on 11.01.2019 and was ready to come to Allahabad from (Sonebhadra

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

3) read with Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act for ay:2010-11, the assessee was asked by AO to explain about the aforesaid claim of deduction. The assessee submitted before the AO that the said claim has been made as per RBI/NABARD instructions for provisioning on advances and other assets. It was submitted by the assessee before

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

3) read with Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act for ay:2010-11, the assessee was asked by AO to explain about the aforesaid claim of deduction. The assessee submitted before the AO that the said claim has been made as per RBI/NABARD instructions for provisioning on advances and other assets. It was submitted by the assessee before

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)

143(3) of the 1961 Act. 6.2 Aggrieved by the addition as was made by the AO, the assessee filed first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: “ 4. Addition of Rs. 46,39,150/- 4.1 “ Break up of Rs. 46,39,150 as has been added back by the learned Assessing Officer by invoking of provisions

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

143(3) at a total income of Rs.1,82,70,440/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. During the course of assessment, the following additions were made by the ld. AO. i. On account of suppressed sale – Rs. 16,68,561/-. ii. On account of inflated expenses on the basis of print outs of CPU marked

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

143(3) at a total income of Rs.1,82,70,440/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. During the course of assessment, the following additions were made by the ld. AO. i. On account of suppressed sale – Rs. 16,68,561/-. ii. On account of inflated expenses on the basis of print outs of CPU marked

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

143(3) at a total income of Rs.1,82,70,440/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. During the course of assessment, the following additions were made by the ld. AO. i. On account of suppressed sale – Rs. 16,68,561/-. ii. On account of inflated expenses on the basis of print outs of CPU marked

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2010-11. As the issues involved in these appeals are common, these appeals are being taken up for disposal together for the sake of convenience. The grounds of appeal in the appeals and Cross Objection are as under:- C.O. No.24/Alld/2014 M/s Kesarwani & Co. “1. That the learned

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2010-11. As the issues involved in these appeals are common, these appeals are being taken up for disposal together for the sake of convenience. The grounds of appeal in the appeals and Cross Objection are as under:- C.O. No.24/Alld/2014 M/s Kesarwani & Co. “1. That the learned

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 of the said property in accordance with the provisions of the act. 9. Because the learned AO as well as CIT(A) were not legally justified in taxing a sum of Rs. 3,96,606.00, amount of unsecured loan and sundry creditors which were under normal course of business, under the provisions of section

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

143 (2) of the Act which is mandatory requirement of the Act, hence the assessment is liable to be annulled. 4. That in any view of the matter the gross receipt as declared by the appellant is true and correct which was estimated by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 1,24,06,975.00 is highly unjustified in the facts

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

143(3) of the 1961 Act. 3. The assessee being aggrieved by assessment order passed by AO, filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) agitating all the three issues on which additions were made by AO to the income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) issued to assessee several notices viz. notices dated 19.07.2019 16.09.2019 and 09.11.2019, fixing date

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

143 taxman.com 178. He has relied upon the impugned order of the CIT(A). 7. Having considered the claim of the assessee as well as the submissions of the learned DR, at the outset, we note that though the assessee has paid the employees’ contribution towards PF and ESI before the due date of filing of return under section

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

3,57,387/-. The assessee has reported a business loss of Rs. 4,37,494/- and after claiming setting off brought forward depreciation, the business income reported by the assessee at loss of Rs. 7,63,940/-. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the assessee explained each and every item of the income has been duly declared

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

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.5,29,827/- on account of disallowance of depreciation

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

143(3) of the Act on income Rs. 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