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 40(a)(ia) and 43B. It was submitted by ld. DR that the assessee has submitted details/evidences / explanations for the first time before ld. CIT(A) , and that the no remand report was called by CIT(A) from AO , which is in breach of Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962.The prayers were made

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

97,095/- on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and Rs.5,29,827/- on account of disallowance of depreciation

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)

97, of which Rs. 62/- per quintal was payable at the time of purchase of sugarcane , while Rs. 8/- per quintal was payable at the close of season. The assessee did not provided for this liability of Rs. 8/- per quintal in its audited books of accounts for the year 1996-97 nor it claimed the said deduction

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

97, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had reconsidered its earlier decision in the case of S.A. Builders Limited vs. CIT(Appeals) 2007 158 taxman 74, in which interest paid by a holding company on borrowed money advanced to a subsidiary for business purposes would entitle it for deduction on the borrowings. He also relied upon the decision in the case

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

97, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had reconsidered its earlier decision in the case of S.A. Builders Limited vs. CIT(Appeals) 2007 158 taxman 74, in which interest paid by a holding company on borrowed money advanced to a subsidiary for business purposes would entitle it for deduction on the borrowings. He also relied upon the decision in the case

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

97, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had reconsidered its earlier decision in the case of S.A. Builders Limited vs. CIT(Appeals) 2007 158 taxman 74, in which interest paid by a holding company on borrowed money advanced to a subsidiary for business purposes would entitle it for deduction on the borrowings. He also relied upon the decision in the case