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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

1) however, since there is a delay as per the respective acts governing the PF and ESI, therefore, the issue is now settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Supra) in paragraph nos. 31 to 55 as under:- “31. Section 43B falls in Part

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

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

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

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

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

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 & 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

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

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

1) of that section provides that in case, interest is paid on share capital issued for the purpose of raising money to defray the expenses of constructing any work or building or the provision of any plant in contingencies mentioned in that section, the sums so paid by way of interest may be charged to capital as part

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

1. Numerous instances have come to the notice of the Board where assessee’s claim for depreciation duly shown in the return was not considered by the Income-tax Officer because books of account produced were not properly maintained and it was necessary to estimate profits by invoking the proviso to section 13 of the 1922 Act. The course generally

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