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

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

13. Still Aggrieved by appellate order dated 23.09.2019 passed by ld. CIT(A), the assessee company has filed an appeal before tribunal. The ld. counsel for assessee submitted before the Division Bench during the course of hearing that the assessee is only seeking set off of earlier year brought forward business loss and brought forward unabsorbed depreciation , in accordance with

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

13. Still Aggrieved by appellate order dated 23.09.2019 passed by ld. CIT(A), the assessee company has filed an appeal before tribunal. The ld. counsel for assessee submitted before the Division Bench during the course of hearing that the assessee is only seeking set off of earlier year brought forward business loss and brought forward unabsorbed depreciation , in accordance with

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

13. Still Aggrieved by appellate order dated 23.09.2019 passed by ld. CIT(A), the assessee company has filed an appeal before tribunal. The ld. counsel for assessee submitted before the Division Bench during the course of hearing that the assessee is only seeking set off of earlier year brought forward business loss and brought forward unabsorbed depreciation , in accordance with

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.

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

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 by AO u/s 143(3

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 by AO u/s 143(3

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

c) Disallowance on account of donation paid Rs. 51,000/- d) Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of TDS Rs.1,19,950/- e) Disallowance of Proportionate Expenses Rs.1,55,700/- ----------------- Total Rs. 6,26,650/- 5 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s Subhash Stone Industries Private Limited (Formerly Rajluxmi Stone Crushers Private Limited) v. Deputy Commissioner of Income

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

C) Diary No.43280/2023 in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Siddharth Gupta, respectively. (J.1.2) Similarly, in the case of Pr.CIT & Anr. Vs. Sapna Gupta (supra), Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held as under: I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 74 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 75 I.T.A. Nos.113

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

C) Diary No.43280/2023 in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Siddharth Gupta, respectively. (J.1.2) Similarly, in the case of Pr.CIT & Anr. Vs. Sapna Gupta (supra), Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held as under: I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 74 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 75 I.T.A. Nos.113

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

C) Diary No.43280/2023 in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Siddharth Gupta, respectively. (J.1.2) Similarly, in the case of Pr.CIT & Anr. Vs. Sapna Gupta (supra), Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held as under: I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 74 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 75 I.T.A. Nos.113

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

C) Diary No.43280/2023 in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Siddharth Gupta, respectively. (J.1.2) Similarly, in the case of Pr.CIT & Anr. Vs. Sapna Gupta (supra), Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held as under: I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 74 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 75 I.T.A. Nos.113

SHRI KAMALENDRA BHADUR MISHRA,,SONEBHADRA vs. DCIT, RANGE-III, MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kamalendra Bhadur Mishra V. Dcit Prop. M/S K.S. Engineearing Range Iii Iii-19, Jme Colony Mirzapur Shakti Dnagar, Sonebhadra Tan/Pan:Adbpm4445K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K.R. Singh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13 02 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 02 2020 O R D E R

disallowed in ITA No.240/ALLD/2017 Page 3 of 7 computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of section 271(1)(c), be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed; that therefore, since in the present case, the assessee has not been able to substantiate the explanation offered

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

3) of the Income Tax Act by the various higher authorities of the department so as per the principles of consistency addition made is unwarranted as the assessing officer is bound to give cognizance to the past records. (c) That in the assessment year 1999-2000 for the first time in the history of the case an identical and similar

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

3) of the Income Tax Act by the various higher authorities of the department so as per the principles of consistency addition made is unwarranted as the assessing officer is bound to give cognizance to the past records. (c) That in the assessment year 1999-2000 for the first time in the history of the case an identical and similar

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), ALLAHABAD vs. MONAD INFRASOLUTION LIMITED, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose and the Cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, V. Monad Infrasolution Limited, Ward-2(2), Allahabad C-80 Gtb Nagar Kareli, Allahabad, 211016 U.P. Pan-Aajcm2155J (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 01/Alld/2021 In Assessment Year: 2015-16 Monad Infrasolution Limited, V. Income Tax Officer, C-80 Gtb Nagar Kareli, Ward-2(2), Allahabad Allahabad, 211016 U.P. Pan-Aajcm2155J (Appellant) (Respondent)

c) is also issued.” 13. It is clear from the assessment order that the AO issued notice under Section 143(2) through e-mail as well as registered post but there was no compliance. The AO then issued notices under Section 142(1) on 26.10.2017 and 04.12.2017 but ITA No. 62/ALLD/2020 and C.O. No. 01/ALLD/2021 (arising

KESARWANI & C0,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

c) were initiated. During the course of assessment, the following additions were made by the ld. AO. i. On account of suppressed sale – Rs. 16,68,561/-. ii. On account of inflated expenses on the basis of print outs of CPU marked as KZ-1 – Rs. 20,76,268/-. iii. On account of repair and maintenance - Rs.10

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

c) were initiated. During the course of assessment, the following additions were made by the ld. AO. i. On account of suppressed sale – Rs. 16,68,561/-. ii. On account of inflated expenses on the basis of print outs of CPU marked as KZ-1 – Rs. 20,76,268/-. iii. On account of repair and maintenance - Rs.10