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

depreciation shall be proportionately disallowed. Section 38(2) is reproduced hereunder: “Building, etc., partly used for business, etc., or not exclusively so used. 38. (1) *** (2) Where any building, machinery, plant or furniture is not exclusively used for the purposes of the business or profession, the deductions under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) and clause (c) of section

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

31 of the paper book, wherein audited accounts of the assessee are placed. It was submitted that the AO allowed deduction of Rs. 8,03,763/-, while disallowance was made by AO to the tune of Rs. 1,70,81,955/-. It was submitted that there is no question of disallowing any deduction with respect to Section 36(1)(viia

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

31 of the paper book, wherein audited accounts of the assessee are placed. It was submitted that the AO allowed deduction of Rs. 8,03,763/-, while disallowance was made by AO to the tune of Rs. 1,70,81,955/-. It was submitted that there is no question of disallowing any deduction with respect to Section 36(1)(viia

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

31. Section 43B falls in Part-V of the IT Act. What is apparent is that the scheme of the Act is such that Sections 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

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

section 10(2)(vii) would be computed without making any deduction for depreciation for arriving at the written down value of the asset. 2. The Board considered that where it is proposed to estimate the profit and the prescribed particulars have been furnished by the assessee, the depreciation allowance should be separately worked out. In all such cases, the gross

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)

Section 43B in such a scenario as ultimately, the assessee will be claiming depreciation u/s 32 of the 1961 Act on the interest being capitalized , even though presently as claimed by assessee, the interest is capitalized by debiting to Capital Work in progress and not debited presently to P&L Account(which also requires verification ) . Since, all these aspects were

M/S N CHAURASIA ASSOCIATES,,SONEBHADRA vs. ACIT,, MIRZAPUR

In the result, while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed the appeal of the Department is held to be allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S N. Chaurasia Associates, Income Tax, Circle-3, Mirzapur Shaktinagar, Sonebhadra Pan:Aajfm0374N (Appellant) (Respondent) & A.Y. 2014-15 M/S N. Chaurasia Associates, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Khadia Bazar, Shaktinagar, Tax, Circle-Iii, Mirzapur Sonebhadra Pan:Aajfm0374N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Navin C. Agrawal, C.A. & Ms. Nita Goyal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals For Have Both Been Filed Against The Order Under Section 250 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Allahabad On 10.01.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue In Ita No. 41/Alld/2019, Are As Under:- "Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Has Not Erred In Allowing The Relief Of Rs. 6,51,65,031/- By Accepting The Assessee'S Statement That The Receipts Are From Its Business Activity In Civil Construction Without Any Verifiable A.Y. 2014-15 M/S N. Chaurasia Associates

31,552/- as income from other sources was not justified. As regards the rejection of the books of accounts and the estimation of net profit @ 8% by the ld. AO on the verifiable contract receipt of Rs.5,46,10,926/-, it was submitted that the N.P. rate before depreciation was not as poor as what was reflected

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. M/S N CHAURASIA ASSOCIATES, , SONEBHADRA (AAJFM0374N)

In the result, while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed the appeal of the Department is held to be allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S N. Chaurasia Associates, Income Tax, Circle-3, Mirzapur Shaktinagar, Sonebhadra Pan:Aajfm0374N (Appellant) (Respondent) & A.Y. 2014-15 M/S N. Chaurasia Associates, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Khadia Bazar, Shaktinagar, Tax, Circle-Iii, Mirzapur Sonebhadra Pan:Aajfm0374N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Navin C. Agrawal, C.A. & Ms. Nita Goyal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals For Have Both Been Filed Against The Order Under Section 250 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Allahabad On 10.01.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue In Ita No. 41/Alld/2019, Are As Under:- "Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Has Not Erred In Allowing The Relief Of Rs. 6,51,65,031/- By Accepting The Assessee'S Statement That The Receipts Are From Its Business Activity In Civil Construction Without Any Verifiable A.Y. 2014-15 M/S N. Chaurasia Associates

31,552/- as income from other sources was not justified. As regards the rejection of the books of accounts and the estimation of net profit @ 8% by the ld. AO on the verifiable contract receipt of Rs.5,46,10,926/-, it was submitted that the N.P. rate before depreciation was not as poor as what was reflected

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

depreciation and development rebate it was necessary to find out 'the actual cost' of the plant and machinery purchased by the company. This Court held that 'cost' is a word of wider connotation than 'price'. There was a difference between the price of a machinery and its cost. This Court thereafter pointed out that the expression 'actual cost

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

31, 2003, the earlier provisions of block assessment in the case of search initiated against the assessee would not apply, as the special procedure for assessment in search cases contained in Chapter XIVB stood abolished and the new provision of section 153A provided for only a single assessment, of the period comprising of previous years, relating to six assessment years

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

31, 2003, the earlier provisions of block assessment in the case of search initiated against the assessee would not apply, as the special procedure for assessment in search cases contained in Chapter XIVB stood abolished and the new provision of section 153A provided for only a single assessment, of the period comprising of previous years, relating to six assessment years

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

31, 2003, the earlier provisions of block assessment in the case of search initiated against the assessee would not apply, as the special procedure for assessment in search cases contained in Chapter XIVB stood abolished and the new provision of section 153A provided for only a single assessment, of the period comprising of previous years, relating to six assessment years

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

depreciation expenses, it was submitted there was no finding that the partners had utilized the telephones or the cars of the firm for their personal use and therefore, the disallowance of these expenditures were completely unjustified. It was, therefore, prayed that while the deletions made by the ld. CIT(A) were supported in the cross objection, the assessee

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

depreciation expenses, it was submitted there was no finding that the partners had utilized the telephones or the cars of the firm for their personal use and therefore, the disallowance of these expenditures were completely unjustified. It was, therefore, prayed that while the deletions made by the ld. CIT(A) were supported in the cross objection, the assessee

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

31,363.50 which had increased substantially to Rs.2,47,27,380.01 during the year under consideration . There was no sales promotion scheme conducted during the preceding year , as is emerging from P&L account and it is the first year when such a sale promotion scheme was conducted by assessee. The sale has increased manifold in this year