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

3,98,526/- under the various heads of business expenditures maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is highly unjustified as the provision of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable hence the addition under Section 40(a)(ia) of the income tax Act is unwarranted. 5. That in any view of the matter disallowance

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

3,98,526/- under the various heads of business expenditures maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is highly unjustified as the provision of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable hence the addition under Section 40(a)(ia) of the income tax Act is unwarranted. 5. That in any view of the matter disallowance

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

3,98,526/- under the various heads of business expenditures maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is highly unjustified as the provision of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable hence the addition under Section 40(a)(ia) of the income tax Act is unwarranted. 5. That in any view of the matter disallowance

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

3,98,526/- under the various heads of business expenditures maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is highly unjustified as the provision of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable hence the addition under Section 40(a)(ia) of the income tax Act is unwarranted. 5. That in any view of the matter disallowance

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both appeals i

194C, which they were not required to do. He had submitted details of all such deductions before the ld. AO. Despite this and without considering the fact that the assessee had in fact disclosed A.Y.2009-10 M/s Deora Electric Works much more receipts under the two heads of contract receipts and sales receipts, as compared to what was alleged

M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both appeals i

194C, which they were not required to do. He had submitted details of all such deductions before the ld. AO. Despite this and without considering the fact that the assessee had in fact disclosed A.Y.2009-10 M/s Deora Electric Works much more receipts under the two heads of contract receipts and sales receipts, as compared to what was alleged

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. M/S. J.P.YADAV , SONEBHADRA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

194C and hence consequently additions were made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the 1961 Act. It was submitted by ld. Sr. DR that reassessment proceedings were initiated by AO by invoking provisions of Section 147/148 of the 1961 Act. The ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee did not submitted details/explanations called