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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

116 taxmann.com 378/273 Taxman 189/425 ITR 1 (SC)/2020 (5) SCC 274 this court examined, and repelled a challenge to the constitutionality of section 43B, especially the provision requiring actual payment, in respect of leave encashment benefit of employees. The court observations in this regard are relevant: "20. Section 43B, however, is enacted to provide for deductions to be availed

ACIT,, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S KESARWANI & CO., ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

section 143(3) and both the ld. AO and the ld. CIT(A) were entitled to satisfy themselves about the completeness and correctness of the assessee’s accounts, which the assessee could not fulfill, we are in agreement with the decision of the ld. CIT(A) to disallow a portion of expenditure on account of un-vouched and unverifiable expenses

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

section 143(3) and both the ld. AO and the ld. CIT(A) were entitled to satisfy themselves about the completeness and correctness of the assessee’s accounts, which the assessee could not fulfill, we are in agreement with the decision of the ld. CIT(A) to disallow a portion of expenditure on account of un-vouched and unverifiable expenses

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowances and the approving authority will also ensure that proper enquiry or investigations are carried out by the Assessing Officer on the relevant materials including material in the hands of the Department. Secondly, the Assessing Officer also keeps in mind the interest of Revenue. Therefore, the said provision provides application of mind by the approving authority of the Department. I.T.A

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowances and the approving authority will also ensure that proper enquiry or investigations are carried out by the Assessing Officer on the relevant materials including material in the hands of the Department. Secondly, the Assessing Officer also keeps in mind the interest of Revenue. Therefore, the said provision provides application of mind by the approving authority of the Department. I.T.A

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowances and the approving authority will also ensure that proper enquiry or investigations are carried out by the Assessing Officer on the relevant materials including material in the hands of the Department. Secondly, the Assessing Officer also keeps in mind the interest of Revenue. Therefore, the said provision provides application of mind by the approving authority of the Department. I.T.A

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowances and the approving authority will also ensure that proper enquiry or investigations are carried out by the Assessing Officer on the relevant materials including material in the hands of the Department. Secondly, the Assessing Officer also keeps in mind the interest of Revenue. Therefore, the said provision provides application of mind by the approving authority of the Department. I.T.A

ATAUL MUSTAFA,NANBAI SHAHZADPUR KAUSHAMBI vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2 ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Ataul Mustafa, Vs. Dcit, Nanbai, Shahzadpur, Kaushambi Circle-2, Allahabad Pan:Bvcpm0589G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Shiv Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Allahabad Dated 7.03.2019 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Has Ignored The Submissions Made Before Him, Ignored The Comparative Cases & Confirmed The Addition Of Rs. 25,96,375/- Which Was Made In An Ex Parte Order By Applying A Higher Rate (2%) Of Net Profit. 2- Because The Commissioner Of Appeals Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By Using The 2% Net Profit Rate Made Upon By The Ld Assessing Officer Relying Upon The Case Of Babu Islaam, The Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Disregarded The Established Determination Of 0.41% Net Profit Made By The Hon' Able Settlement Commission In The Very Case Of Babu Islam. The Appellant Argues That The Rs 25,96,375/- Of Addition Should Be Deleted. 3- Because The Order Is Bad In The Eyes Of Law & Against The Facts.”

disallowances, if they were not supported by vouchers or other evidences to the satisfaction of the assessee. For this proposition, he relied upon the case of Goodyear India Limited vs. CIT (2000) 246 ITR 116 (Del). Therefore, he applied the provisions of section

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

section 145(3) of the act and once the said provision for rejection of account was not invoked then the addition made is unwarranted because for rejection of account invoking of provision of section 145(3) is a mandatory requirement. In this regard there are various decisions in support of the assessee including the decision of apex court and various

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

section 145(3) of the act and once the said provision for rejection of account was not invoked then the addition made is unwarranted because for rejection of account invoking of provision of section 145(3) is a mandatory requirement. In this regard there are various decisions in support of the assessee including the decision of apex court and various