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

Section 36(1). By virtue of the Explanation below subclause (va), no deduction could be claimed if the contribution has not been paid, after collection from the employees by way of deduction from their salaries, within the due date under the EPF&MP Act. The deletion of a proviso under Section 43B cannot render otiose the Explanation under Section

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 36(1)(va) read with Explanation 1 and Section 2(24)(x) of the 1961 Act and deduction is not allowable going by strict and literal interpretation of provisions of the statute. Thus, once the deduction is found to be not allowable otherwise under the 1961 Act being hit by infringement of Section

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

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. BECAUSE 'surplus' arising out of 'transfer' of 'Capital asset', without prejudice to the contention raised in grounds no. 8 to 13 above, should have been subjected to assessment as 'long term capital gain', instead of 'short terms capital gain' as has been made/upheld by the 'Authorities below'. 15. BECAUSE the order appealed against, is contrary to facts

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

14 years. By the amendment of 2003, the second proviso was deleted. This court interpreted the law, in the light of these developments, in Alom Extrusions. The court considered the effect of omission of the second proviso, and observed as follows: "10. "Income" has been defined under section 2(24) of the Act to include profits and gains. Under Section

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

III, Mirzapur- 231001, U.P. Mirzapur, U.P. PAN:AAAAZ0342H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh.Ashish Bansal Adv. Respondent by: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 11.08.2021 Date of pronouncement: 30 .09.2021 O R D E R PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These two appeals, filed by assessee, being ITA No.135/Alld./2015 and 136/Alld/2015 for assessment year

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

III, Mirzapur- 231001, U.P. Mirzapur, U.P. PAN:AAAAZ0342H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh.Ashish Bansal Adv. Respondent by: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 11.08.2021 Date of pronouncement: 30 .09.2021 O R D E R PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These two appeals, filed by assessee, being ITA No.135/Alld./2015 and 136/Alld/2015 for assessment year

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

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

14 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 15 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 16 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 17 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 18 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

14 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 15 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 16 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 17 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 18 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

14 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 15 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 16 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 17 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 18 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

14 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 15 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 16 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 17 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 18 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years

VANDANA BANSAL L/H OF LATE DR. ASHWANI KUMAR BANSAL, ,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowances and the approving authority will also ensure that proper enquiry or investigations are carried out by the Assessing Officer on the relevant materials including material in the hands of the Department. Secondly, the Assessing Officer also keeps in mind the interest of Revenue. Therefore, the said provision provides application of mind by the approving authority of the Department. Therefore