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

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

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

MAHAVIR PRASAD SATISH CHANDRA,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) , ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year 2013-14

disallowable u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the 2 M/s Mahavir Pd. Satish Chandra Act. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. 3. Before the Tribunal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the payment in question does not come within the ambit of Section 194C

SHAKUNTALA KUSHWAHA,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(3), ALLAHABAD

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2009-10 Shakuntala Kushwaha V. Income Tax Officer 2(3) 105/54, Kareli Allahabad Allahabad Tan/Pan:Aodpk2329D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Shri S. K. Madhuk, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 02 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 02 2020

disallowing the freight and cartage expenses claimed by the assessee. 6. Before the ld. CIT(A), the submission of the assessee was that there is no doubt that the assessee made freight payment to two transporters, namely Thangagaji Golden Transport Company and Delhi Rajasthan Company, amounting to Rs.8,09,896/- and ITA No.130/ALLD/2019 Page 3 of 5 Rs.1

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

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