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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance of commission on sales Rs.11,20,165/-. 4. Aggrieved with the said additions, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), it challenged the order passed under section 153A(b) dated 20.12.2011, as being passed without jurisdiction. It denied its liability to be assessed under block

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

assessment framed by AO, carried the matter further before ld. CIT(A) by filing first appeal, and the assessee submitted before ld. CIT(A) on the first issue of disallowance of depreciation , as under.:- “The A.O has wrongly computed the amount disallowed being 30% of total depreciation claimed u/s 32 amounting to Rs.12148152/- as Rs.36444445/- instead of Rs.3644445/-. As mentioned

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

assessment framed by AO, carried the matter further before ld. CIT(A) by filing first appeal, and the assessee submitted before ld. CIT(A) on the first issue of disallowance of depreciation , as under.:- “The A.O has wrongly computed the amount disallowed being 30% of total depreciation claimed u/s 32 amounting to Rs.12148152/- as Rs.36444445/- instead of Rs.3644445/-. As mentioned

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

assessment framed by AO, carried the matter further before ld. CIT(A) by filing first appeal, and the assessee submitted before ld. CIT(A) on the first issue of disallowance of depreciation , as under.:- “The A.O has wrongly computed the amount disallowed being 30% of total depreciation claimed u/s 32 amounting to Rs.12148152/- as Rs.36444445/- instead of Rs.3644445/-. As mentioned

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING(P).LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT. CIT(OSD),, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

block assessment made determining the income of Rs. 16,74,550.00/- as against returned income Rs. 8,42,480.00/- is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 3. That in any view of the matter while passing the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) totally failed to consider the facts of the case

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING (P) LTD,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,(OSD), ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

block assessment made determining the income of Rs. 16,74,550.00/- as against returned income Rs. 8,42,480.00/- is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 3. That in any view of the matter while passing the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) totally failed to consider the facts of the case

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING (P) LTD,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT. C.IT,(OSD), ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

block assessment made determining the income of Rs. 16,74,550.00/- as against returned income Rs. 8,42,480.00/- is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 3. That in any view of the matter while passing the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) totally failed to consider the facts of the case

M/S KESARWANI <ARKETING (P) LTD,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT (OSD),, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

block assessment made determining the income of Rs. 16,74,550.00/- as against returned income Rs. 8,42,480.00/- is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 3. That in any view of the matter while passing the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) totally failed to consider the facts of the case

M/S. SUBHASH STONE INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NAINITAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallowance under various heads to the tune of Rs. 6,26,650/- and completed the assessment u/s 143(3), vide order dated 21-12- 2010. The Assessing Officer while framing the assessment u/s 153A of the Act has added an amount of Rs. 6,26,650/- which was earlier added U/s 143(3) of the Act. It is relevant

JCIT(OSD),, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S BALAJI AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES, (P) LTD., ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee and Revenue for ay: 2009-10 are allowed for statistical purposes, while CO filed by assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallowances in their orders are incorrect, general, vague and contrary to the actual facts of the case and hence deserve to be ignored. 3. That in any view of the matter the assessee denies his liability to be assessed since the assessing officer has no jurisdiction to pass assessment order for the block

M/S BALAJU AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES(P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT. CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee and Revenue for ay: 2009-10 are allowed for statistical purposes, while CO filed by assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallowances in their orders are incorrect, general, vague and contrary to the actual facts of the case and hence deserve to be ignored. 3. That in any view of the matter the assessee denies his liability to be assessed since the assessing officer has no jurisdiction to pass assessment order for the block

M/S BALAJI AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT,CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee and Revenue for ay: 2009-10 are allowed for statistical purposes, while CO filed by assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallowances in their orders are incorrect, general, vague and contrary to the actual facts of the case and hence deserve to be ignored. 3. That in any view of the matter the assessee denies his liability to be assessed since the assessing officer has no jurisdiction to pass assessment order for the block

M/S BALAJI AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES(P).LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT. (0SD), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee and Revenue for ay: 2009-10 are allowed for statistical purposes, while CO filed by assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallowances in their orders are incorrect, general, vague and contrary to the actual facts of the case and hence deserve to be ignored. 3. That in any view of the matter the assessee denies his liability to be assessed since the assessing officer has no jurisdiction to pass assessment order for the block

M/S KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance by Rs.73,16,513/- on account of bogus purchases even though the facts brought on records by the AO have been admitted by the CIT(A). 6. That the order of the Ld. CIT (A) being erroneous in law and on facts needs to be vacated and the order of the A.O. be restored.” 2. The facts

ACIT,, ALLAHABAD vs. KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance by Rs.73,16,513/- on account of bogus purchases even though the facts brought on records by the AO have been admitted by the CIT(A). 6. That the order of the Ld. CIT (A) being erroneous in law and on facts needs to be vacated and the order of the A.O. be restored.” 2. The facts

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

Assessment Year: 2010-11 and 2011-12 qualified by statutory auditors. Thus, it was submitted that the guidelines are statutory and hence the assessee is bound to follow the same . The AO rejected claim of the assessee by invoking provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) of the 1961 Act, while the AO allowed deduction to the tune of seven

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

Assessment Year: 2010-11 and 2011-12 qualified by statutory auditors. Thus, it was submitted that the guidelines are statutory and hence the assessee is bound to follow the same . The AO rejected claim of the assessee by invoking provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) of the 1961 Act, while the AO allowed deduction to the tune of seven

JEEVAN JYOTI INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD , ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

block period consisting of multiple years; whereas under section 153D of the Act, separate approvals are to be given by the approving authority for separate assessment orders pertaining to different assessment years for each assessee. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the contention of the learned Departmental Representatives that there was no statutory form prescribed for granting approval