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.

section 24(a) amounting to Rs. 7,03,585/- on these properties. He also disallowed the house tax of Rs. 52,718/- for the property at Hewett Road. He, thereafter, decided to treat the net income of Rs. 23

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) only as against

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

disallowance of expenses stood reduced by ld. CIT(A) to Rs. 7,48,442/- , being additions made by invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of the 1961 Act. We have already adjudicated this issue , while adjudicating appeal for ay: 2007-08, and facts being similar in this year, our decision for ay: 2007-08 shall

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

disallowance of expenses stood reduced by ld. CIT(A) to Rs. 7,48,442/- , being additions made by invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of the 1961 Act. We have already adjudicated this issue , while adjudicating appeal for ay: 2007-08, and facts being similar in this year, our decision for ay: 2007-08 shall

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

disallowance of expenses stood reduced by ld. CIT(A) to Rs. 7,48,442/- , being additions made by invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of the 1961 Act. We have already adjudicated this issue , while adjudicating appeal for ay: 2007-08, and facts being similar in this year, our decision for ay: 2007-08 shall

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

disallowance of expenses stood reduced by ld. CIT(A) to Rs. 7,48,442/- , being additions made by invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of the 1961 Act. We have already adjudicated this issue , while adjudicating appeal for ay: 2007-08, and facts being similar in this year, our decision for ay: 2007-08 shall

MADHU DUBEY,ALLAHABAD vs. DC/AC-1(1),ALLAHABAD, MG MARG ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 Madhu Dubey V. Dc/Ac-1(1) 657A/1, Jamuna Nagar, Chak Mg Marg, Allahabad- Raghunath, Naini-211008. 211001. Pan:Asipd8489J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

disallowed in want of supporting voucher of expenses and added to the income of the assessee [Addition of Rs 6,23,742/] 62 Section

ANIL KUMAR GUPTA,PANCHKULA(HARYANA) vs. DCIT, CIR- 1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.18/Alld/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बनधम/ Anil Kumar Gupta Dcit, Circle-1 House No.452P, Sector-25, Income Tax Office, 38, Vs. Panchkula-134109. M. G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh- 211001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aatpg1541K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Asit Hajela Revenue By: Shri A. K. Singh (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 21.12.2022 For Ay. 2013-14. 2. Ground No. 1 To 3 Are Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Disallowance Of Unpaid Service Tax Liability Of Rs.10,92,548/- U/S 43B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 3. The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Running A Concern Of Providing Security Guard & Manpower. The Assessee Has Been Consistently Following Mercantile System Of Accounting For Earlier As Well As Subsequent Years. & Assessee From Inception Is Registered Under The Service Tax & Regularly Depositing Service Tax In The Relevant Government Account. In The Year Under Consideration, The Ao Noted From Perusal Of The Balance-Sheet That Rs.10,92,548/- Pertaining

section 43B of the Act to disallow Rs.10,92,548/- because neither the assessee debited the amount (Rs.10.92 Lakhs) in the profit and loss account as an expenditure nor did he claim any deduction in respect of this amount; and considering that assessee has been following mercantile system of accounting the judicial precedent cited

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

23 At the time of hearing before us, learned Representatives of both sides submitted that the pleadings made by the Departmental Representatives in the case of Minto Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and also the paper books and other documents filed in the case of Minto Developers Pvt. Ltd. may also be considered for the present appeals before us. (B) Learned

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

23 At the time of hearing before us, learned Representatives of both sides submitted that the pleadings made by the Departmental Representatives in the case of Minto Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and also the paper books and other documents filed in the case of Minto Developers Pvt. Ltd. may also be considered for the present appeals before us. (B) Learned

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

23 At the time of hearing before us, learned Representatives of both sides submitted that the pleadings made by the Departmental Representatives in the case of Minto Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and also the paper books and other documents filed in the case of Minto Developers Pvt. Ltd. may also be considered for the present appeals before us. (B) Learned

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

23 At the time of hearing before us, learned Representatives of both sides submitted that the pleadings made by the Departmental Representatives in the case of Minto Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and also the paper books and other documents filed in the case of Minto Developers Pvt. Ltd. may also be considered for the present appeals before us. (B) Learned

KESARWANI & C0,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 153A on the basis of material other than incriminating material discovered during the search .In view of our reasoning adopted in ITA No. 392/Alld/2014 for the A.Y. 2009-10, this ground of appeal is allowed. 21. Ground Nos. 5 to 8 pertain to disallowance made on account of difference in figures as recorded in KZ- 1 and the regular

KESARWANI & C0.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT., ALLAHABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 153A on the basis of material other than incriminating material discovered during the search .In view of our reasoning adopted in ITA No. 392/Alld/2014 for the A.Y. 2009-10, this ground of appeal is allowed. 21. Ground Nos. 5 to 8 pertain to disallowance made on account of difference in figures as recorded in KZ- 1 and the regular

KESARWANI & CO.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 153A on the basis of material other than incriminating material discovered during the search .In view of our reasoning adopted in ITA No. 392/Alld/2014 for the A.Y. 2009-10, this ground of appeal is allowed. 21. Ground Nos. 5 to 8 pertain to disallowance made on account of difference in figures as recorded in KZ- 1 and the regular

M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Deora Electric Works V. The Jcit 58-A, Sardar Patel Marg Range – I Allahabad Allahabad Pan:Aadfd7479B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 03 2025 O R D E R

disallowable under section 40A(3) of the Act, it was submitted that these were made after office hours at various sites. Regarding the difference in amount of bank guarantee and commission as reported by the Bank, the assessee submitted that the guarantees were taken from Bank of Baroda, Main Branch, Allahabad and the fees were collected by them from

SAVLA AGENCIES,ALLAHABAD vs. JCIT, RANGE-I, , ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2011-12 Savla Agencies, V. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, 26, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Range-I, Allahabad Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aawfs0816J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Tanmay Sadh, Adv Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.01.2023 O R D E R

disallowance made by the AO of Rs. 3,27,465/- on account of excess payment of interest on capital account of the partners of the firm. The assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of Wholesale Trading. The assessee filed revised return of income on 19.11.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 23,53,830/-. The case

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD vs. VIJAY STONE PRODUCTS, SONEBHADRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

23 of order is highly unjustified. 6. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 100000/- as made by assessing officer on basis of seized annexure BS-2/LP-1/82 and his action as confirmed by CIT(A) is highly unjustified. 7. That in any view of the matter findings and observations of the assessing officer in the order