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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

5,88,916/-on account of payment of employees contribution to PF and ESI after due date prescribed under the respective Acts. The learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant has deposited the employees contribution to PF and ESI before the due date of filing of return. Therefore, no disallowance

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

5,90,985.59 till 31.03.2011 on ICD taken from UP Safety Glass , and provision of Section 40(a)(ia) and 43B are attracted to said of interest payable. It was submitted by ld. DR that it is not known whether the assessee complied with provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) and 43B. It was submitted by ld. DR that

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

5,90,985.59 till 31.03.2011 on ICD taken from UP Safety Glass , and provision of Section 40(a)(ia) and 43B are attracted to said of interest payable. It was submitted by ld. DR that it is not known whether the assessee complied with provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) and 43B. It was submitted by ld. DR that

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

5,90,985.59 till 31.03.2011 on ICD taken from UP Safety Glass , and provision of Section 40(a)(ia) and 43B are attracted to said of interest payable. It was submitted by ld. DR that it is not known whether the assessee complied with provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) and 43B. It was submitted by ld. DR that

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

1) and total income was determined at Rs.18,07,570/-. On 18.02.2015, an income tax refund was issued. Thereafter, on 1.08.2015, the assessee filed a revised return electronically at the same returned income of Rs.18,07,570/-, but showing contract receipts of Rs.12,54,42,278.15/-. This case was subsequently picked up for scrutiny by way of issue of notice

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

1) and total income was determined at Rs.18,07,570/-. On 18.02.2015, an income tax refund was issued. Thereafter, on 1.08.2015, the assessee filed a revised return electronically at the same returned income of Rs.18,07,570/-, but showing contract receipts of Rs.12,54,42,278.15/-. This case was subsequently picked up for scrutiny by way of issue of notice

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.

1), the provisions of section 69 and consequently section 115BBE would not apply. The Ld AR further argued that to apply the provisions of Section 69, the twin conditions that triggered the liability for assessment under section 69 had to be fulfilled i.e. that the investment was not recorded in the books of account and that the assessee

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)

5 and 6 in the chart in para 6.6 above ) is concerned , the ld CIT(A) deleted the addition on the grounds that interest payable to U.P. State Government is not hit by provisions of Section 43B. The ld. CIT(A) simply deleted the addition based on the contentions made by the assessee by holding that interest payable on Sugar

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

5. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice.” 2. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee filed his return of income on 15.03.2022 within the extended due date of filing the income tax under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. The return of income

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved.” Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the ground no. 1 is accordingly allowed and would govern our appreciation of the individual additions made in the course of assessment. 11. Ground no.2 relates to addition

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved.” Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the ground no. 1 is accordingly allowed and would govern our appreciation of the individual additions made in the course of assessment. 11. Ground no.2 relates to addition

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved.” Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the ground no. 1 is accordingly allowed and would govern our appreciation of the individual additions made in the course of assessment. 11. Ground no.2 relates to addition

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 32(1)(iii) of the 1961 Act, as the assessee has itself claimed depreciation on Balance ‘Block of Asset’ remaining after reducing consideration received on sale of vehicle. The ld. DR did not raised any objection towards dismissal of ground number 5

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

5. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that these are contingent liabilities/expenses and there was no scientific basis adopted by assessee for making the provision @ 6% of the total sales, and the Assessing Officer has made the addition during the year and consequently these expenses were not verified in the next year. It was submitted that the sales promotion scheme provided

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

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

5. BECAUSE the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts in making enhancement of income of appellant on account of loan taken from Shri Piyush Verma from Rs.8,75,000/- to Rs.11,75,000/- without giving the show cause notice under sub-section (2) of section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. BECAUSE

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 44AD. Thus the learned AR has submitted that the claim of depreciation was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on wrong presumption of fact. Similarly the CIT(A) has 2 Shree Sudhakar Pandey dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the basis of the facts contrary to the record. The learned AR pointed that the assessee has given

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

depreciation by disallowing 10% of expenses claimed is highly unjustified. 6. That in any view of the mater addition of Rs, 11,18,805/- out of cash deposit in bank account is highly unjustified and the Assessing officer was wrong in invoking the p0rovisiojn of Section 68 of the Act hence the entire actin is bad in law. 7. That