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

section 40(a) (ia) as invoked is not correct as the said provision is not applicable at all hence the action of two lower authorities are incorrect. 3. That in any view of the matter the nature of expenditure is marketing expenses incurred by the assessee company is towards reimbursement of payment made by distributors appointed by the company hence

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

section 40(a) (ia) as invoked is not correct as the said provision is not applicable at all hence the action of two lower authorities are incorrect. 3. That in any view of the matter the nature of expenditure is marketing expenses incurred by the assessee company is towards reimbursement of payment made by distributors appointed by the company hence

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

Section 43B in the Finance Act, 1983, the object was to "disallow deductions claimed merely by making a book entry based on the mercantile system of accounting" (sic - para 16

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

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

16,847/- , was liable to be declared as void ab-initio for the reason that selection of case for “scrutiny assessment” and notice under section 143(2) issued (in pursuance of such selection) were not in accordance with the ‘scheme’ of the Act. 2. BECAUSE the “CIT(A)”, in exercise of his coterminous power, while deciding the issue of ‘variation

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

16,847/- , was liable to be declared as void ab-initio for the reason that selection of case for “scrutiny assessment” and notice under section 143(2) issued (in pursuance of such selection) were not in accordance with the ‘scheme’ of the Act. 2. BECAUSE the “CIT(A)”, in exercise of his coterminous power, while deciding the issue of ‘variation

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed under section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4-1984 ** ** ** 22. It is important to note once again that, by the Finance Act, 2003, not only is the second proviso deleted but even the first proviso is sought to be amended by bringing about a uniformity in tax, duty, cess

COMMERCIAL AUTO SALES PVT. LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 43B in the Finance Act, 1983, the object was to "disallow deductions claimed merely by making a book entry based on the mercantile system of accounting" (sic - para 16). Section 43B made it mandatory for the department to grant deduction in computing the income under Section 28 in the year in which the tax, duty, cess, etc. were paid

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

Section 36(1)(va) read with Explanation 1 and Section 2(24)(x) of the 1961 Act. Similarly, Hon'ble Kerala High Court has also decided this issue in favour of Revenue in the case of CIT v. Merchem Limited reported in (2015) 378 ITR 443(Ker. HC) and also in Popular Vehicles and Services Private Limited

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

Section 36(1)(va) read with Explanation 1 and Section 2(24)(x) of the 1961 Act. Similarly, Hon'ble Kerala High Court has also decided this issue in favour of Revenue in the case of CIT v. Merchem Limited reported in (2015) 378 ITR 443(Ker. HC) and also in Popular Vehicles and Services Private Limited

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.

16,79,080/- on 22.01.2022. Thereafter, the return was processed by the CPC, Bengaluru on 17.10.2022, wherein the total income was worked out at Rs.7,59, 83,430/-. A disallowance was made for a sum of Rs.43,04,355/-, as being hit by section

M/S MILLENIUM CONSULTANTS& SERVICE PROVIDERS,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

16. The purpose is very much clear from the above referred explanation by the memorandum that it came with a purpose to ensure tax compliance. The fact that the intention of the legislature was not to punish the assessee is further reflected from a bare reading of the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act. It only

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

16. Ground No. 4 and 5 raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with tribunal, concerns itself with disallowance of marketing expenses to the tune of Rs.12,63,138/- made by the AO which disallowance of expenses stood reduced by ld. CIT(A) to Rs. 3,98,526/- , being additions made by invoking provisions of Section

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

16. Ground No. 4 and 5 raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with tribunal, concerns itself with disallowance of marketing expenses to the tune of Rs.12,63,138/- made by the AO which disallowance of expenses stood reduced by ld. CIT(A) to Rs. 3,98,526/- , being additions made by invoking provisions of Section

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

16. Ground No. 4 and 5 raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with tribunal, concerns itself with disallowance of marketing expenses to the tune of Rs.12,63,138/- made by the AO which disallowance of expenses stood reduced by ld. CIT(A) to Rs. 3,98,526/- , being additions made by invoking provisions of Section

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

16. Ground No. 4 and 5 raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with tribunal, concerns itself with disallowance of marketing expenses to the tune of Rs.12,63,138/- made by the AO which disallowance of expenses stood reduced by ld. CIT(A) to Rs. 3,98,526/- , being additions made by invoking provisions of Section

RAJENDRA TRIPATHI,MAHARAJGANJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), MAHARAJGANJ

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Rajendra Tripathi, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(4), Pharenda Road, Maharajganj Gorakhpur-273155, U.P. Pan:Aadfi7669A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 30.05.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Restricting The Relief To Rs.8,16,905/- (Being 30% Of The Overall Disallowance) Only As Against The Overall Disallowance Aggregating To Rs.27,23,015/- Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Various Heads Of Expenses Being "Advertisement & Publicity, Staff Welfare, Sales Promotion Expenses, Salary To Staff", While Passing The Assessment Order Dated 19.12.2019, As The Said Addition Itself Is Based On A Very Fallacious Ground That; "It Is Customary In Assessment Orders To Disallow Percentage Of Certain Expenses For Different Reasons. However In This Case I Rely On The Daily Observation Of The Staff Of The Income Tax Office, Maharajganj Who Are Sure That The Assessee Works Through Daily Wagers For Loading & Unloading Of Goods & Does Not Employ Any Staff. Besides The Above The Other Three Expenses Have Never Been Observed To Have Been Incurred."

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC on 30.05.2024. The grounds of appeal preferred by the assessee are as under:- “1. BECAUSE the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in restricting the relief to Rs.8,16,905/- (being 30% of the overall disallowance

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)

section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which specify the maximum permissible amount of partners remuneration. 4. In any case and without prejudice to above, the appellant maintains proper books of accounts as required under Rule 6 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, hence, there was absolutely no justification to interfere in disallowance of the remuneration