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

10% of these expenses, which was reduced by ld. CIT(A) to 5% of these expenses . It was submitted that no disallowance of expenses is warranted on estimation basis , and no specific defects were pointed out by both AO as well ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that complete details were filed by assessee before

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

10% of these expenses, which was reduced by ld. CIT(A) to 5% of these expenses . It was submitted that no disallowance of expenses is warranted on estimation basis , and no specific defects were pointed out by both AO as well ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that complete details were filed by assessee before

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallowed Rs. 10,000/- under the head Labour Charges, Rs. 5,000/- under the head Travelling expenses and Rs. 5,000/- under the head Office expenses , as these expenses remained unverifiable in lack of supporting evidences, and addition to the income of the assessee the tune of Rs. 20,000/- was confirmed by the AO. Thus, the income

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

5% of the overall cash withdrawal during the year, as the payments made by the appellant during the year has not been disputed by him while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 10. BECAUSE after having verified all payments made by the appellant, there remains no scope of disallowance

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

5% of the overall cash withdrawal during the year, as the payments made by the appellant during the year has not been disputed by him while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 10. BECAUSE after having verified all payments made by the appellant, there remains no scope of disallowance

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

5% of the overall cash withdrawal during the year, as the payments made by the appellant during the year has not been disputed by him while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 10. BECAUSE after having verified all payments made by the appellant, there remains no scope of disallowance

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

5% of the overall cash withdrawal during the year, as the payments made by the appellant during the year has not been disputed by him while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 10. BECAUSE after having verified all payments made by the appellant, there remains no scope of disallowance

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

5% of the overall cash withdrawal during the year, as the payments made by the appellant during the year has not been disputed by him while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 10. BECAUSE after having verified all payments made by the appellant, there remains no scope of disallowance

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

5% of the overall cash withdrawal during the year, as the payments made by the appellant during the year has not been disputed by him while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 10. BECAUSE after having verified all payments made by the appellant, there remains no scope of disallowance

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

5% of the overall cash withdrawal during the year, as the payments made by the appellant during the year has not been disputed by him while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 10. BECAUSE after having verified all payments made by the appellant, there remains no scope of disallowance

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

5% of the overall cash withdrawal during the year, as the payments made by the appellant during the year has not been disputed by him while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 10. BECAUSE after having verified all payments made by the appellant, there remains no scope of disallowance

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

5% of the overall cash withdrawal during the year, as the payments made by the appellant during the year has not been disputed by him while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 10. BECAUSE after having verified all payments made by the appellant, there remains no scope of disallowance

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

5% of the overall cash withdrawal during the year, as the payments made by the appellant during the year has not been disputed by him while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 10. BECAUSE after having verified all payments made by the appellant, there remains no scope of disallowance

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

10% of these expenses, which was reduced by ld. CIT(A) to 5% of these expenses . It was submitted that no disallowance of expenses is warranted on estimation basis , and no specific defects were pointed out by both AO as well ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that complete details were filed by assessee before

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

10% of these expenses, which was reduced by ld. CIT(A) to 5% of these expenses . It was submitted that no disallowance of expenses is warranted on estimation basis , and no specific defects were pointed out by both AO as well ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that complete details were filed by assessee before

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

10% of these expenses, which was reduced by ld. CIT(A) to 5% of these expenses . It was submitted that no disallowance of expenses is warranted on estimation basis , and no specific defects were pointed out by both AO as well ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that complete details were filed by assessee before

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

10% of these expenses, which was reduced by ld. CIT(A) to 5% of these expenses . It was submitted that no disallowance of expenses is warranted on estimation basis , and no specific defects were pointed out by both AO as well ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that complete details were filed by assessee before

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.

disallow the deductions under section 24(a). However, since the assessee is entitled to deduction on business assets, we accept the alternative argument of the ld. AR that the assessee must be allowed the depreciation on WDV on these buildings annually, in accordance with explanation 5 of section 32 of the Act. Ground No.7 is decided accordingly. 12. With regard