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

15,19,363/- in the return of income filed with Revenue, while the AO in proceedings conducted u/143(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

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

15,19,363/- in the return of income filed with Revenue, while the AO in proceedings conducted u/143(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

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

15,19,363/- in the return of income filed with Revenue, while the AO in proceedings conducted u/143(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

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

Section 32 of the 1961 Act, wherein disallowance was made to the tune of Rs. 1,14,416/-, wherein it was observed by AO that the assessee has claimed additions in fixed assets under the Block of Assets-‘Plant and Machinery’ of Rs. 13,50,973/- and claimed depreciation @15

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

Section 32 of the 1961 Act, wherein disallowance was made to the tune of Rs. 1,14,416/-, wherein it was observed by AO that the assessee has claimed additions in fixed assets under the Block of Assets-‘Plant and Machinery’ of Rs. 13,50,973/- and claimed depreciation @15

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 on WDV on these buildings annually, in accordance with explanation 5 of section 32 of the Act. Ground No.7 is decided accordingly. 12. With regard to the levy of tax under section 115BBE with respect to the unrecorded investment of Rs. 1.85 Crores in the purchase of the immovable property at M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad, we are inclined

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

15% on the air conditioner, bills of which are either in the name of Umang Grover or Umang Sarees. It was submitted that the depreciation of Rs.5,29,827/- be allowed. 6. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that in the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer, the assessee submitted

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

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)

15 which is additional information as required under paragraphs 3, 4C and 4D of Part II of Schedule VI to the Companies Act,1956 (page 28/29 paper book) , wherein details of Raw Material Consumed is given as under: 6. RAW MATERIAL CONSUMED: (a) Sugarcane Qtls. 17,37,103 Value/Rs.12,46,84,200 (5,55,100) (4,38,10,023) Under

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

Section 37(1) of the 1961 Act. The assessee is directed to submit all AY-2005-06 & 2009-10 relevant details/documents before the AO during the course of denovo assessment proceedings before the AO for determination of this issue. Needless to say that the AO shall provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with

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

15. It is true that the company will have to pay interest on the money borrowed by it. But that cannot be a ground for exemption of interest earned by the company by utilizing the borrowed funds as its income. It was rightly pointed out in the case of Kedar Narain Singh v. CIT [1938] 6 ITR 157 (All.) that

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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 is highly unjustified. 3. That in any views

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

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, appeal in ITA No

section 145(3) to this extent and made an addition of Rs.1,00,000/- on this account, thereby giving the assessee relief of Rs.86,94,292/-. 3. The second issue in the Department’s appeal is the decision of the ld. CIT(A) to delete an addition of Rs.2,66,73,629/- on account of unaccounted purchases, without appreciating that

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

section 145(3) to this extent and made an addition of Rs.1,00,000/- on this account, thereby giving the assessee relief of Rs.86,94,292/-. 3. The second issue in the Department’s appeal is the decision of the ld. CIT(A) to delete an addition of Rs.2,66,73,629/- on account of unaccounted purchases, without appreciating that