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

d) or clause (e ) or clause (f), which is actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable in his case for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred as aforesaid and the evidence of such

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

disallowance of Rs. 28,473/-, and thus the total additions to the tune of Rs. 1,14,416/- stoodadded to the income of the assesseeby the AO, vide assessment order dated 23.03.2013 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. 4. Aggrieved by an assessment order dated 23.03.2013 framed

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

disallowance of Rs. 28,473/-, and thus the total additions to the tune of Rs. 1,14,416/- stoodadded to the income of the assesseeby the AO, vide assessment order dated 23.03.2013 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. 4. Aggrieved by an assessment order dated 23.03.2013 framed

DCIT, CIRCLE-II , ALLAHABAD vs. BHARAT PUMPS & COMPRESSORS LTD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

d) or clause (e ) or clause (f), which is actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable in his case for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred as aforesaid and the evidence of such

DCIT, CIRCLE-II , ALLAHABAD vs. BHARAT PUMPS & COMPRESSORS LTD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

d) or clause (e ) or clause (f), which is actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable in his case for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred as aforesaid and the evidence of such

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

d) the said judgment and order dated 16.09.2013, the Hon'ble High Court had specifically dealt with the applicability of the amended provision of section 2(15) effective from the assessment year 2009-10; e) the judgment and order dated 16.09.2013 (supra) had attained finality as the revenue did not challenge the same by taking the matter before

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

d) the said judgment and order dated 16.09.2013, the Hon'ble High Court had specifically dealt with the applicability of the amended provision of section 2(15) effective from the assessment year 2009-10; e) the judgment and order dated 16.09.2013 (supra) had attained finality as the revenue did not challenge the same by taking the matter before

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

d) the said judgment and order dated 16.09.2013, the Hon'ble High Court had specifically dealt with the applicability of the amended provision of section 2(15) effective from the assessment year 2009-10; e) the judgment and order dated 16.09.2013 (supra) had attained finality as the revenue did not challenge the same by taking the matter before

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

d), clause (e) and clause (f) which is consequential in nature. It is also proposed to omit the second proviso to the said section. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2004 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2004-2005 and subsequent years." 42. The rationale for introduction of section 43B was explained by this

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)

d) of section 43 B of the Act nor a scheduled Bank referred to in sub-section (e) of Section 43B of the Act, the provision made for payment of interest to State Government, is outside the ambit of section 43B of the Income Tax Act 1961. The disallowance of liability of interest payable on loan taken from sugar Development

SBW UDYOG LIMITED,,PRAYAGRAJ vs. DCIT, CIR-1,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh.Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2021-22 Sbw Udyog Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 44, Thornhill Road, Prayagraj Tax, Circle-1, Prayagraj Pan:Aadcs2883B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. N.C. Agrawal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .03.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 31.01.2024, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cpc Bengaluru, Under Section, 143(1) Dated 17.10.2022. Subsequently, The Said Appeal Was Migrated To The Nfac & Later On, The Appeal Proceedings Were Transferred To The Additional / Jcit(A), Aurangabad, Who Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because, Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India Has Observed In The Notice Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Reads As Under:- "The Income Tax Department Recognizes & Is Sensitive To The Hardships Being Faced By Taxpayers In Coping With The Challenges Posed By Covid-19 Pandemic." Consequently, Appeal Is Liable To Be Allowed.

D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed against the orders of the ld. CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31.01.2024, dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the orders of the CPC Bengaluru, under section, 143(1) dated 17.10.2022. Subsequently, the said appeal was migrated to the NFAC

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

D E R PER BENCH: These threeappeals bearing ITA numbers 19 to 21/Alld./2020 for assessment years (ay’s): 2012-13& 2013-14 has been filed by assessee before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, U.P. (hereinafter called “the tribunal”) against separateappellate orders passed by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(A), Allahabad (hereinafter called “the CIT(A)”) . The appeal

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

D E R PER BENCH: These threeappeals bearing ITA numbers 19 to 21/Alld./2020 for assessment years (ay’s): 2012-13& 2013-14 has been filed by assessee before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, U.P. (hereinafter called “the tribunal”) against separateappellate orders passed by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(A), Allahabad (hereinafter called “the CIT(A)”) . The appeal

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

D E R PER BENCH: These threeappeals bearing ITA numbers 19 to 21/Alld./2020 for assessment years (ay’s): 2012-13& 2013-14 has been filed by assessee before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, U.P. (hereinafter called “the tribunal”) against separateappellate orders passed by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(A), Allahabad (hereinafter called “the CIT(A)”) . The appeal

UMRAO SINGH SMARAK SAMITI,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

D E R PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal, filed by assessee, being ITA No.38/Alld./2022 for assessment year 2018-19, is directed against an appellate order dated 18.11.2022 in Appeal No. CIT(A),Allahabad/10093/2020-21(DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1047496818(1)) passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter called

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

D) We have heard representatives of both sides. We have also perused the materials on record carefully. (D.1) The first limb of the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the assessee is on the legal ground that statutory approval given to the Assessing Officer for the assessment orders was not based on application of mind. It was the case

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

D) We have heard representatives of both sides. We have also perused the materials on record carefully. (D.1) The first limb of the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the assessee is on the legal ground that statutory approval given to the Assessing Officer for the assessment orders was not based on application of mind. It was the case

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

D) We have heard representatives of both sides. We have also perused the materials on record carefully. (D.1) The first limb of the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the assessee is on the legal ground that statutory approval given to the Assessing Officer for the assessment orders was not based on application of mind. It was the case