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

Section 80 and 139(3) of the 1961 Act. So far as quantum of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation which were assessed to be carried forward to subsequent years and its period of allowability is concerned, we are of the considered view that these facts requiresverification by Assessing Officer from the record , and the material on record available

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

Section 80 and 139(3) of the 1961 Act. So far as quantum of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation which were assessed to be carried forward to subsequent years and its period of allowability is concerned, we are of the considered view that these facts requiresverification by Assessing Officer from the record , and the material on record available

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

Section 80 and 139(3) of the 1961 Act. So far as quantum of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation which were assessed to be carried forward to subsequent years and its period of allowability is concerned, we are of the considered view that these facts requiresverification by Assessing Officer from the record , and the material on record available

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 @50% of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset specified in the said proviso. This issue is also decided against the assesse and in favour of Revenue. We order accordingly. Now, coming back to the first effective issue concerning grant of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the 1961 Act. The assessee has claimed deduction

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 @50% of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset specified in the said proviso. This issue is also decided against the assesse and in favour of Revenue. We order accordingly. Now, coming back to the first effective issue concerning grant of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the 1961 Act. The assessee has claimed deduction

SHREE SUDHAKAR PANDEY,SONBHEDRA vs. ACIT RANGE-III,, MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Sudhakar Pandey, Civil Line, V Acit, Robertsganj, Sonebhadra, Uttar Pradesh- . Range-Iii, Mirzapur, U.P. 231216 Pan-Alds03711B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Adv Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/12/2021 O R D E R

24,580/-. Learned AR had claimed before this Tribunal that necessary particulars for claim of depreciation were filed in the return of income and as per CBDT Circular No. 2 dated 09.02.2011, the Assessing Officer was bound to allow the claim of depreciation out of estimated income of the assessee. The fat of claim of depreciation in the return

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)

24 Assessment Year: 1997-98 Shervani Sugar Syndicate Limited Limited(Supra) and Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Limited(Supra). However, the composition/details/bifurcation/working of interest payable as also corresponding loans availed by the assessee has not been looked into by ld. CIT(A) , as discussed by us as above in this order and hence , we have already set aside the matter

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

section 24(a) of the Income Tax Act. The assesse has also declared income from other sources being interest from saving bank account, interest from FDR, other item and dividend from shares total amounting to Rs. 3,37,670/-. The assessee has specifically given the details of exempt income of PPF interest of Rs. 3,41,127/- and interest

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

24,90,770/-. Prior to the filing of such return, another return had earlier been filed under section 139(1), with the same returned income. That original return had been processed under section 143(1) and in this manner, all the necessary information / facts and figures had been brought on record much prior to the date of search

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

24,90,770/-. Prior to the filing of such return, another return had earlier been filed under section 139(1), with the same returned income. That original return had been processed under section 143(1) and in this manner, all the necessary information / facts and figures had been brought on record much prior to the date of search

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

24,90,770/-. Prior to the filing of such return, another return had earlier been filed under section 139(1), with the same returned income. That original return had been processed under section 143(1) and in this manner, all the necessary information / facts and figures had been brought on record much prior to the date of search

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

24. An assessee-company may have raised its capital by issue of shares or debentures or by borrowing. But when that capital or a portion of it was utilised for whatever reason, even for a short period, to earn interest that interest must be treated as the revenue receipt and will have to be taxed accordingly

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

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