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

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

2 And ITA No. 136/ALLD/2015 ZilaSahkari Bank Limited Assessment Year: 2010-11 and 2011-12 appended to the RBI Act 1934, the claim of the “appellant” was liable to be allowed in its entirely, looking to the insertion of terms “non-scheduled bank”/“cooperative bank” in section 36(1)(viia) by the Finance Act 2007 w.e.f. 1.4.2007. 5. BECAUSE

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

2 And ITA No. 136/ALLD/2015 ZilaSahkari Bank Limited Assessment Year: 2010-11 and 2011-12 appended to the RBI Act 1934, the claim of the “appellant” was liable to be allowed in its entirely, looking to the insertion of terms “non-scheduled bank”/“cooperative bank” in section 36(1)(viia) by the Finance Act 2007 w.e.f. 1.4.2007. 5. BECAUSE

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

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.

2 Lacs and M/s Narayan Marketing of Rs.1,96,606/-. 5 A.Y.2018-19 Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal Accordingly, the ld. AO treated the credits from these two parties as unexplained and brought them to tax. 5. Aggrieved with these additions, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). With regard to the disallowance of deduction under section 24(a) from

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

section 143(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

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

section 143(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

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

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

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

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

5 of the 1961 Act and Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited(supra) while rejecting the contentions of the assessee and bringing to tax interest income earned on bank deposits under the head ‘Income from other sources’ under the provisions of Section

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

M/SPANDEY TRANSPORT CO.,SONEBHADRA vs. ITO,, MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

2) of the Act on 25-08-2009, which is within the limitation period as prescribed under such section, accordingly, the Ground No.3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 5. Ground Nos.4 & 6 are regarding trading addition being the Net Profit @10% adopted by the Assessing Officer as against the Net Profit declared by the assessee

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

5) of the 1961 Act, on 26.08.2013, declaring revised total income of Rs. 1,51,92,317/-. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment , u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. The assessee produced books of accounts and submitted details before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings

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

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

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