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

8 appeals of different Development Authorities and thereby denying exemption of section 11. (2) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in confirming denial of exemption u/s section 11. (3) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of net excess of income over expenditure of Rs.3

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

section 11 is not allowable. Accordingly, since the requisite conditions were not satisfied, order u/s 154 was correctly passed disallowing deduction claimed u/s. 11(1)(a). 7. Condonation of delay: The appellant has not filed the Audit report in Form- 10B along with the return and filed the same at a later date. The Board, vide CIRCULAR NO. 2/2020

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

8 years since 31/07/2017 on which approval was given by the JCIT u/s 153D of the Act. He contended that it was impossible for the deponent Assessing Officer to remember the facts of the case including specific dates and specific letter numbers; which are found in the affidavit; after such substantial lapse of time; and similarly, it was impossible

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

8 years since 31/07/2017 on which approval was given by the JCIT u/s 153D of the Act. He contended that it was impossible for the deponent Assessing Officer to remember the facts of the case including specific dates and specific letter numbers; which are found in the affidavit; after such substantial lapse of time; and similarly, it was impossible

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

8 years since 31/07/2017 on which approval was given by the JCIT u/s 153D of the Act. He contended that it was impossible for the deponent Assessing Officer to remember the facts of the case including specific dates and specific letter numbers; which are found in the affidavit; after such substantial lapse of time; and similarly, it was impossible

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

8 years since 31/07/2017 on which approval was given by the JCIT u/s 153D of the Act. He contended that it was impossible for the deponent Assessing Officer to remember the facts of the case including specific dates and specific letter numbers; which are found in the affidavit; after such substantial lapse of time; and similarly, it was impossible

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

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

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

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

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)

disallowed these expenses. Our attention was drawn to the Assessment order passed by the AO. Our attention was also drawn to Page No. 74 of the paper book, wherein voucher dated 30.11.1997 for Rs. 90,81,606.80 is placed and it was submitted that the assessee is claiming that this representcane price difference @ Rs. 8/- per quintal

BHAGWAN THEATERS (FIRM),ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Shree Bhagwan Theatres V. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 166. Bai Ka Bagh, Allahabad - 1(5) 211003. Allahabad-211001. Tan/Pan: Aayfs0529E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K. K. Srivastava Shri Sumit Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A.K. Singh, Cit ( Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2021 O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)- Allahabad, Both Dated 08.08.2019 For The A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. For The A.Y.2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds.- “1. Because The Authorities Below Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appellants Grounds On The Issue Of Jurisdiction. 2. Because The Appellants Ground That The Authorities Below Could Not Travel Recorded Was Illegally & Unjustifiably Dismissed Legal Aspects As Has Been Brought By The Of Hearing Of Appeal. 3. Because The Ld. Cit(A) Unjustifiably Disallowed Part Of The Remuneration Of Partner Smt. Meera Gupta & Smt. Sita Gupta Without Provisions Of Section 40(B)

13,890/-) of total expenses claimed at Rs. 42,892/-. Whereas the appellant was never asked to produce any vouchers before the AO. 8. Because the disallowances are too high and excessive and deserves to be reduced suitably. 9. Because the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice.” 3. Ground

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

8,03,763/-. The second issue which arises from this appeal for ay: 2010-11 is with respect to disallowance of depreciation under 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

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

8,03,763/-. The second issue which arises from this appeal for ay: 2010-11 is with respect to disallowance of depreciation under 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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

8. Aggrieved with these disallowances that had been sustained by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. AR’) appeared on behalf of the assessee and argued the case. At the very outset, the ld. AR submitted that he was not pressing ground no. 6 on account

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

8. Aggrieved with these disallowances that had been sustained by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. AR’) appeared on behalf of the assessee and argued the case. At the very outset, the ld. AR submitted that he was not pressing ground no. 6 on account

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

8. Aggrieved with these disallowances that had been sustained by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. AR’) appeared on behalf of the assessee and argued the case. At the very outset, the ld. AR submitted that he was not pressing ground no. 6 on account

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