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

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

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

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 the AO that the banks

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

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 the AO that the banks

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

15,21,060/- has been made by the CPC, Bengaluru. He has pointed out that this adjustment amounts to double taxation of the income which was already declared in the return of income under the head, “income from house property” and “income from other 2 Sri Brajesh Agrawal sources”. He has referred to the return of income filed

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

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

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

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

2)(id) as income from other sources. The amendment made in 1988 has no relevance for the purpose of this case. We shall take this Act as it stood at the material time in the assessment year 1983-84. 11. The computation of income under each of the above six heads will have to be made independently and separately. There

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

2 raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with the tribunal. We order accordingly. 4. The assessee has vide ground number 3 , 4 and 5 raised the contention on the merits of the issue which is a solitary issue raised before us, in which claim is made that the assessee has made a provision for Rs.14,77,400/- which

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

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

2 of its appeal, the assessee has also agitated the decision of the ld. CIT(A) to retain an addition of Rs.63,866/- on account of Surti expenses, Rs.9,984/- on account of Telephone expenses, Rs. 7,257/- on account of vehicle expenses, Rs.49,486/- on account of depreciation expenses and Rs.7,000/- on account of repair and maintenance expenses

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

2 of its appeal, the assessee has also agitated the decision of the ld. CIT(A) to retain an addition of Rs.63,866/- on account of Surti expenses, Rs.9,984/- on account of Telephone expenses, Rs. 7,257/- on account of vehicle expenses, Rs.49,486/- on account of depreciation expenses and Rs.7,000/- on account of repair and maintenance expenses

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 & 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