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

28,383/- instead of Rs. 42,64,03,237/- in the Grounds of Appeal, which may please be ignored. Brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 42,64,03,237/- can be verified from the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 29.12.2008 for A.Y. 2006-07. In this regard appellant will be free to move proper application as per law before

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

depreciation, the business income reported by the assessee at loss of Rs. 7,63,940/-. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the assessee explained each and every item of the income has been duly declared in the return of income however, the CPC, while processing the return of income has made the adjustment on account of rental income, interest

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%. The AO asked assessee to submit evidence. The assessee filed

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%. The AO asked assessee to submit evidence. The assessee filed

VINOD KUMAR TANDON,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT(CPC),, BEGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

28 to 38 deal with different kinds of deductions, whereas sections 40 to 43B spell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for assessments and expressly prescribing conditions for disallowances. In terms of this scheme, section 40 (which too starts with a non-obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under

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

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

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)

28 Assessment Year: 1997-98 Shervani Sugar Syndicate Limited Rs. 46,39,150/- The AO made additions by invoking provisions of Section 43B of the 1961 Act, while ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions by holding as as under: “4.2 Decision: Admittedly, Rs. 4,74,013/- had been paid before the due date of filing of the return of income

COMMERCIAL AUTO SALES PVT.LTD,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee with tribunal in ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. The assessee produced books of accounts and submitted details before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 1,56,71,370/- as against returned income of Rs. 1,51,92,320/- , wherein three additions were made by AO to the income

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

28,256.04 Total Sales (including VAT) Rs.37,82,54,283.73 In explaining the discrepancy between the print out and the books of accounts, the assessee submitted that the figure of sales as per the computer amounting to Rs.38,01,62,145/- as against actual sales of Rs.37,82,854,283/-, was due to an error in the computer software

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

28,256.04 Total Sales (including VAT) Rs.37,82,54,283.73 In explaining the discrepancy between the print out and the books of accounts, the assessee submitted that the figure of sales as per the computer amounting to Rs.38,01,62,145/- as against actual sales of Rs.37,82,854,283/-, was due to an error in the computer software

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

28,256.04 Total Sales (including VAT) Rs.37,82,54,283.73 In explaining the discrepancy between the print out and the books of accounts, the assessee submitted that the figure of sales as per the computer amounting to Rs.38,01,62,145/- as against actual sales of Rs.37,82,854,283/-, was due to an error in the computer software