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 32(2) of the 1961 Act, if the full effect cannot be given to depreciation u/s 32(1) allowable

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible in certain circumstances. Section 41 elaborates conditions which apply with respect to certain deductions which are otherwise allowed in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability etc. If we consider this scheme, Sections 40- 43B, are concerned with and enact different conditions, that

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

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 copies

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

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 copies

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 under section 32(1) would have been claimed by the assessee on the said properties and the ld. AO would have been bound to allow the same. It was submitted that in identical circumstances, in the case of his wife, the ld.CIT(A) had taken a different stance and allowed the appeal of the assessee. A copy

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

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

2 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Commercial Auto Sales Private Limited occasion when an adjournment application was moved by ld. Counsel for the assessee before ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) was pleased to partly allow the appeal of the assessee, wherein ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- paid to Mrs. Madhu Gupta , Director towards

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

2). The ld. AO observed, that as compared to assessment year 2012-13, the assessee had shown declining profit rates in the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 and in the assessment year 2014-15, the net profit rate was only rupees 2.437%. The ld. AO observed, that as per Form 26AS, the total contract receipts were only

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

2). The ld. AO observed, that as compared to assessment year 2012-13, the assessee had shown declining profit rates in the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 and in the assessment year 2014-15, the net profit rate was only rupees 2.437%. The ld. AO observed, that as per Form 26AS, the total contract receipts were only

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

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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

2 ITR (Trib) 178 (Coch) and DCIT vs. Natrajan (K.)(2010), (Bangalore ITAT), to hold that the requirement that the assessment should be confined to the undisclosed income found during the search were no longer necessary under the new system of assessment. The ld. CIT(A) recorded his respectful disagreement with the decision of the Special Bench Mumbai

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

2 ITR (Trib) 178 (Coch) and DCIT vs. Natrajan (K.)(2010), (Bangalore ITAT), to hold that the requirement that the assessment should be confined to the undisclosed income found during the search were no longer necessary under the new system of assessment. The ld. CIT(A) recorded his respectful disagreement with the decision of the Special Bench Mumbai

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

2 ITR (Trib) 178 (Coch) and DCIT vs. Natrajan (K.)(2010), (Bangalore ITAT), to hold that the requirement that the assessment should be confined to the undisclosed income found during the search were no longer necessary under the new system of assessment. The ld. CIT(A) recorded his respectful disagreement with the decision of the Special Bench Mumbai