ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is registered under section 12A of the 1961 Act. It is a State Government body constituted by an Act of State Government and is engaged in the business of development and sale of land for residential and commercial purposes. The object of the authority as defined under section

KESARWANI MARKETING(P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

13,64,337/-. Still aggrieved with the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A), the assessee has now filed an appeal with tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before the Bench that the assessee has granted marketing rights to the distributors. The disallowance were made by invoking provisions of Section 194C read with Section

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

13,64,337/-. Still aggrieved with the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A), the assessee has now filed an appeal with tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before the Bench that the assessee has granted marketing rights to the distributors. The disallowance were made by invoking provisions of Section 194C read with Section

JYOTI MEDISERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

10. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material on record. We find that in this case, in view of a search carried out on the Sigma Group, the assessments of various assessees were reopened and various assessees were required to file income tax returns as required under the provisions of section 153A

JYOTI MEDISERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, ,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

10. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material on record. We find that in this case, in view of a search carried out on the Sigma Group, the assessments of various assessees were reopened and various assessees were required to file income tax returns as required under the provisions of section 153A

JYOTI MEDISERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

10. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material on record. We find that in this case, in view of a search carried out on the Sigma Group, the assessments of various assessees were reopened and various assessees were required to file income tax returns as required under the provisions of section 153A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD vs. JYOTI MEDISERVICES LTD., ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

10. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material on record. We find that in this case, in view of a search carried out on the Sigma Group, the assessments of various assessees were reopened and various assessees were required to file income tax returns as required under the provisions of section 153A

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

Section 32 of the 1961 Act, wherein disallowance was made to the tune of Rs. 1,14,416/-, wherein it was observed by AO that the assessee has claimed additions in fixed assets under the Block of Assets-‘Plant and Machinery’ of Rs. 13,50,973/- and claimed depreciation @15%. The AO asked assessee to submit evidence. The assessee filed

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

Section 32 of the 1961 Act, wherein disallowance was made to the tune of Rs. 1,14,416/-, wherein it was observed by AO that the assessee has claimed additions in fixed assets under the Block of Assets-‘Plant and Machinery’ of Rs. 13,50,973/- and claimed depreciation @15%. The AO asked assessee to submit evidence. The assessee filed

M/S UDVASIT BEROJGAR SAHAKARI SHRAM SAMVIDA SAMITI LTD.,,SONBHADRA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19

13,14,725/- which was not deposited before the due date prescribed under the statute governing PF/ESI and hence hit by provision of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the 1961 Act. There is a recent amendment by Finance Act , 2021 in Section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the 1961 Act. Similar issue

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.

13 SCC 427. 8. On the issue of disallowance of deduction under section 24(a) from rental income receipt, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee was a licensee of a liquor and a trader. His business was not into the renting out of property. If it was held that he was into the business of renting out property, then

SURENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CIR-2, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2002-03 Surendra Kumar Mishra, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 794A/1, Sohabatiyabagh, Income Tax, Circle-2, Allahabad Allahabad-211006, U.P. Pan:Aibpm4858R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Under Section 250 R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.10.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Dismissing The 'Additional Ground' Relating To Non-Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act, Raised Before The Appellate Authority During The Course Of First Round Of Litigation, Which Has Been Remanded Back By The Hon'Ble Itat In Terms Of Order Dated 09.11.2012, By Observing That The Return Filed By The Appellant In Terms Of Letter Dated 10.11.2008 As Not A Valid Return In Compliance To Notice Dated 11.02.2008 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act, As The Said Letter Was Filed By The Appellant After The Time Limit Of 30 Days Provided To Do So In Terms Of Notice Dated 11.02.208 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act. 2. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Observing That The Appellant Could Not Have Demand For Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The 1 Surendra Kumar Mishra

section 48 of the Act. 12. BECAUSE the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in not allowing full deduction of expenses claimed (other than freehold charges) at Rs.15,73,360/- and in restricting the same to Rs.14,16,024/- (being 90% of the claimed amount). 13. BECAUSE adhoc disallowance to the extent of 10

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)

10. The next issue concerns itself with the deletion by ld. CIT(A) of disallowance of Rs. 1042/-on account of payment to Dinners Club, which was earlier added by the AO to the income of the assessee vide assessment order dated 31.01.2000 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. The AO during the course of assessment

DINESH KUMAR SINGH,MIRZAPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

13,580/-on the ground that such expenses are remained unverifiable because of lack of supporting evidence. Obviously, such lump sum disallowances is nottenable in the eye of law because AO has failed to specify as to which expenditure is not having supporting evidence. If there is no supporting evidence of labour charges, travelling expenses and office expenses, then entire

SHAKUNTALA KUSHWAHA,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(3), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2009-10 Shakuntala Kushwaha V. Income Tax Officer 2(3) 105/54, Kareli Allahabad Allahabad Tan/Pan:Aodpk2329D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Shri S. K. Madhuk, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 02 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 02 2020

13 02 2020 O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Allahabad, dated 19/9/2019, for assessment year 2009- 10. 2. The sole issue involved in this appeal relates to the addition of Rs.9,32,378/- made by the Assessing Officer under section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed under section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4-1984 ** ** ** 22. It is important to note once again that, by the Finance Act, 2003, not only is the second proviso deleted but even the first proviso is sought to be amended by bringing about a uniformity in tax, duty, cess

ANIL KUMAR GUPTA,PANCHKULA(HARYANA) vs. DCIT, CIR- 1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.18/Alld/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बनधम/ Anil Kumar Gupta Dcit, Circle-1 House No.452P, Sector-25, Income Tax Office, 38, Vs. Panchkula-134109. M. G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh- 211001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aatpg1541K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Asit Hajela Revenue By: Shri A. K. Singh (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 21.12.2022 For Ay. 2013-14. 2. Ground No. 1 To 3 Are Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Disallowance Of Unpaid Service Tax Liability Of Rs.10,92,548/- U/S 43B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 3. The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Running A Concern Of Providing Security Guard & Manpower. The Assessee Has Been Consistently Following Mercantile System Of Accounting For Earlier As Well As Subsequent Years. & Assessee From Inception Is Registered Under The Service Tax & Regularly Depositing Service Tax In The Relevant Government Account. In The Year Under Consideration, The Ao Noted From Perusal Of The Balance-Sheet That Rs.10,92,548/- Pertaining

section 43B of the Act to disallow Rs.10,92,548/- because neither the assessee debited the amount (Rs.10.92 Lakhs) in the profit and loss account as an expenditure nor did he claim any deduction in respect of this amount; and considering that assessee has been following mercantile system of accounting the judicial precedent cited

SHRI NEERAJ MAHESHWARI,SONEBHADRA vs. DY. CIT, (CPC), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Before Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Neeraj Maheshwari, V. Shri Amrit Raj Singh, Bijpur Rihand Nagar, Sonebhadra- Dy. Commissioner Of Inco Tax, 2312233, U.P. Cpc Bangalore Pan- Afvpm5660E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. A.K. Pandey, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022 O R D E R

13,14,725/- which was not deposited before the due date prescribed under the statute governing PF/ESI and hence hit by provision of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the 1961 Act. There is a recent amendment by Finance Act , 2021 in ITA No. 16/Alld/ 2021 Section