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

disallowed and additions/disallowances be made to be income of the assessee and why the assessee may not be assessed accordingly. In response it was submitted that its activities of the assessee authority were of a charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15) was not applicable in its case. 7.2 The AO was not satisfied with the reply

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

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 was dealt

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

14. We are of the opinion that the question with respect to employee's contribution is regulated by clause (x) of Section 2(24) and sub-clause (va) of Section 36(1) and would not be affected by Section 43B. Section 43B though a non-obstante clause, makes deductions to be allowable only on actual payment; when such deductions

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

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 was dealt

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

14. The grounds of appeals raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with tribunal reads as under:- “1. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts to confirm the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of depreciation claim Rs.36,44,445/- being 30% of the total depreciation

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

14. The grounds of appeals raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with tribunal reads as under:- “1. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts to confirm the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of depreciation claim Rs.36,44,445/- being 30% of the total depreciation

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

14. The grounds of appeals raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with tribunal reads as under:- “1. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts to confirm the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of depreciation claim Rs.36,44,445/- being 30% of the total depreciation

SURENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CIR-2, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2002-03 Surendra Kumar Mishra, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 794A/1, Sohabatiyabagh, Income Tax, Circle-2, Allahabad Allahabad-211006, U.P. Pan:Aibpm4858R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Under Section 250 R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.10.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Dismissing The 'Additional Ground' Relating To Non-Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act, Raised Before The Appellate Authority During The Course Of First Round Of Litigation, Which Has Been Remanded Back By The Hon'Ble Itat In Terms Of Order Dated 09.11.2012, By Observing That The Return Filed By The Appellant In Terms Of Letter Dated 10.11.2008 As Not A Valid Return In Compliance To Notice Dated 11.02.2008 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act, As The Said Letter Was Filed By The Appellant After The Time Limit Of 30 Days Provided To Do So In Terms Of Notice Dated 11.02.208 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act. 2. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Observing That The Appellant Could Not Have Demand For Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The 1 Surendra Kumar Mishra

14 Surendra Kumar Mishra provisions of section 142(1) read, that where a person has not made a return within the time allowed under section 139(1) or before the end of the relevant assessment year, a notice may be served upon him to furnish a return of his income and finally the provisions of section 148(1) read, that

RAJESH BAJAJ,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

14,69,28,769/- during the current assessment year and hence there is enough evidence to demonstrate the business expediency in incurring the additional rent. Further, the authorities have not considered the explanation furnished by the assessee, i.e. 1. The proximity of the shop from home. 2. The need for a nearby bank and food establishment 3. The nearness

RAJESH BAJAJ,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

14,69,28,769/- during the current assessment year and hence there is enough evidence to demonstrate the business expediency in incurring the additional rent. Further, the authorities have not considered the explanation furnished by the assessee, i.e. 1. The proximity of the shop from home. 2. The need for a nearby bank and food establishment 3. The nearness

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowances. In terms of this scheme, section 40 (which too starts with a non-obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head "Profits and Gains of Business and Profession". Likewise, section 40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible

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

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

2. BECAUSE the “CIT(A)”, in exercise of his coterminous power, while deciding the issue of ‘variation’ between the ‘returned income’ and ‘assessed income’ as represented by (a)Disallowance out of provision for ‘bad debts’ : Rs, 1,70,81,955 Under section 36(1)(viia) (b) disallowance out of depreciation : : Rs. 1,14

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

2. BECAUSE the “CIT(A)”, in exercise of his coterminous power, while deciding the issue of ‘variation’ between the ‘returned income’ and ‘assessed income’ as represented by (a)Disallowance out of provision for ‘bad debts’ : Rs, 1,70,81,955 Under section 36(1)(viia) (b) disallowance out of depreciation : : Rs. 1,14

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)

2,00,14,490/-, and the assessee has not submitted proof regarding such payment of unpaid sales tax liability to the tune of Rs. 48,172/- being made before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1), along with return of income filed with Revenue. The AO invoked provisions of Section 43B and disallowed

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.

disallowance of deduction under section 24(a) from rental income receipt, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee was a licensee of a liquor and a trader. His business was not into the renting out of property. If it was held that he was into the business of renting out property, then depreciation under section 32(1) would have been

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