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

II(3), Allahabad making total additions of Rs. 2,42,39,843/- on adhoc basis and without allowing any set-off of brought forward business, losses and unabsorbed depreciation, thereby raising demand of Rs. 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

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

depreciation allowable under the 1961 Act) on the differential amount, leading to disallowance of Rs. 28,473/-, and thus the total additions to the tune of Rs. 1,14,416/- stoodadded to the income of the assesseeby the AO, vide assessment order dated 23.03.2013 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. 4. Aggrieved by an assessment

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

depreciation allowable under the 1961 Act) on the differential amount, leading to disallowance of Rs. 28,473/-, and thus the total additions to the tune of Rs. 1,14,416/- stoodadded to the income of the assesseeby the AO, vide assessment order dated 23.03.2013 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. 4. Aggrieved by an assessment

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

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 under section 32(1) would have been claimed by the assessee on the said properties and the ld. AO would have been bound to allow the same. It was submitted that in identical circumstances, in the case of his wife, the ld.CIT(A) had taken a different stance and allowed the appeal of the assessee. A copy

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

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. Aggrieved with the action of the I.T.A. No.140/Alld/2024 4 Assessing Officer, the assessee