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

35, to be carried forward, effect shall first be given to the provisions of this section. (3) No loss [(other than the loss referred to in the proviso to sub-section (1) of this section)] shall be carried forward under this section for more than eight assessment years immediately succeeding the assessment year for which the loss was first computed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

35 is as under:- The appellant is an individual and filed his return of income under section 139(1) on 30.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 7,89,550/-. While processing the return the learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, CPC has made the addition of Rs. ome Tax, 5,88,916/-on account of payment of employees contribution

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

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

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)

2,60,590/- as per audited accounts for financial year 1996-97(paper book/page 34) in the Fixed Asset Schedule , the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the sum of Rs. 35,80,396/- is capitalized by debiting to ‘Capital Work in Progress’ , and an amount of Rs. 3,86,94,450/- is outstanding as at 31.03.1997 under

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

35 taxman.com 293, to hold that since the assessee was not engaged in the business of investment in shares, interest bearing funds invested in shares of related company interest was liable to be disallowed under section 36(1)(iii). Observing that the assessee had unsecured loans amounting to Rs.2,38,32,073/- and interest on capital amounting to Rs.31

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

35 taxman.com 293, to hold that since the assessee was not engaged in the business of investment in shares, interest bearing funds invested in shares of related company interest was liable to be disallowed under section 36(1)(iii). Observing that the assessee had unsecured loans amounting to Rs.2,38,32,073/- and interest on capital amounting to Rs.31

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

35 taxman.com 293, to hold that since the assessee was not engaged in the business of investment in shares, interest bearing funds invested in shares of related company interest was liable to be disallowed under section 36(1)(iii). Observing that the assessee had unsecured loans amounting to Rs.2,38,32,073/- and interest on capital amounting to Rs.31

MOHD. SULAMAN FAROOQUI ,PRATAPGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PRATAPGARH

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

2. That in any view of the matter the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in deciding the appeal ex- parte without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee and simply by applying Multiplan India case appeal was deciding which action is highly unjustified. 3. That in any views of the matter addition of Rs. 5,35,755/- on account incentive given