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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

2 ITR (Trib) 178 (Coch) and DCIT vs. Natrajan (K.)(2010), (Bangalore ITAT), to hold that the requirement that the assessment should be confined to the undisclosed income found during the search were no longer necessary under the new system of assessment. The ld. CIT(A) recorded his respectful disagreement with the decision of the Special Bench Mumbai

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

2 ITR (Trib) 178 (Coch) and DCIT vs. Natrajan (K.)(2010), (Bangalore ITAT), to hold that the requirement that the assessment should be confined to the undisclosed income found during the search were no longer necessary under the new system of assessment. The ld. CIT(A) recorded his respectful disagreement with the decision of the Special Bench Mumbai

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

2 ITR (Trib) 178 (Coch) and DCIT vs. Natrajan (K.)(2010), (Bangalore ITAT), to hold that the requirement that the assessment should be confined to the undisclosed income found during the search were no longer necessary under the new system of assessment. The ld. CIT(A) recorded his respectful disagreement with the decision of the Special Bench Mumbai

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

145(3) in sustaining addition of Rs.100000.00 out of Rs.8794292.00 although he himself held that addition of Rs.8794292.00 can not be sustained. Hence the addition of Rs.100000.00 as per last para of 4.4 of the order is unjustified and uncalled for. 2. That the disallowances of the following amounts as confirmed by the learned CIT (A) are quite unjustified, arbitrary

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

145(3) in sustaining addition of Rs.100000.00 out of Rs.8794292.00 although he himself held that addition of Rs.8794292.00 can not be sustained. Hence the addition of Rs.100000.00 as per last para of 4.4 of the order is unjustified and uncalled for. 2. That the disallowances of the following amounts as confirmed by the learned CIT (A) are quite unjustified, arbitrary

M/S BHOLA FOOD PRODUCTS(P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT. CIT,(OSD),, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee for ay: 2005-06 and 2009-10

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

145(3) of the income tax act was not invoked hence the maintenance of a part of the addition by-the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is unjustified and illegal. 5. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs. 3,15,17,675.00 has been made by the assessing officer based on her own wishes