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 were made by invoking provisions of Section 194C read with Section 40(a)(ia) , as no TDS was deducted by the assessee on these payments. It was submitted that the distributors have also not deducted any TDS while making payments for marketing done of the assessee’s products. Our attention was drawn to relevant para’s of the assessment

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 were made by invoking provisions of Section 194C read with Section 40(a)(ia) , as no TDS was deducted by the assessee on these payments. It was submitted that the distributors have also not deducted any TDS while making payments for marketing done of the assessee’s products. Our attention was drawn to relevant para’s of the assessment

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 were made by invoking provisions of Section 194C read with Section 40(a)(ia) , as no TDS was deducted by the assessee on these payments. It was submitted that the distributors have also not deducted any TDS while making payments for marketing done of the assessee’s products. Our attention was drawn to relevant para’s of the assessment

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 were made by invoking provisions of Section 194C read with Section 40(a)(ia) , as no TDS was deducted by the assessee on these payments. It was submitted that the distributors have also not deducted any TDS while making payments for marketing done of the assessee’s products. Our attention was drawn to relevant para’s of the assessment

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

30 (B.2.0) The learned Departmental Representatives also placed reliance on common written submissions filed earlier relevant portion of which is being reproduced below: I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 31 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 32 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

30 (B.2.0) The learned Departmental Representatives also placed reliance on common written submissions filed earlier relevant portion of which is being reproduced below: I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 31 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 32 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

30 (B.2.0) The learned Departmental Representatives also placed reliance on common written submissions filed earlier relevant portion of which is being reproduced below: I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 31 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 32 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

30 (B.2.0) The learned Departmental Representatives also placed reliance on common written submissions filed earlier relevant portion of which is being reproduced below: I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 31 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 32 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years

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

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 Act as the 'return

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 AY 2009-10, this ground of appeal is allowed. 28. Ground No. 2 pertains to disallowance made on account of difference in figures as recorded in KZ 1 and the regular accounts presented along

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 AY 2009-10, this ground of appeal is allowed. 28. Ground No. 2 pertains to disallowance made on account of difference in figures as recorded in KZ 1 and the regular accounts presented along

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 AY 2009-10, this ground of appeal is allowed. 28. Ground No. 2 pertains to disallowance made on account of difference in figures as recorded in KZ 1 and the regular accounts presented along

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 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Aggrieved with these additions, the assessee went before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A), in considering the reasons cited for disallowance of expenses, held that since the disallowances had been made on account of, ‘common sensical knowledge’ the reason could not be rejected in toto. Therefore, he stated that 30

POOJA GROVER,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CIR-2,, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance @30@ on the assets whereas the claim of depreciation has been made @10% on furniture and 15% on the air conditioner, bills of which are either in the name of Umang Grover or Umang Sarees. It was submitted that the depreciation of Rs.5,29,827/- be allowed. 6. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the orders

M/S JAI MAA SHARDA SERVICE STATION,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

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

disallowance ignoring that conditions of exception from application of section 40A(3) r/w Rule 6DD(j) needs to be strictly interpreted by applying the Hayden's rule of Mischief and also the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of customs Vs M/s Dilip Kumar And Company. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

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

disallowance ignoring that conditions of exception from application of section 40A(3) r/w Rule 6DD(j) needs to be strictly interpreted by applying the Hayden's rule of Mischief and also the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of customs Vs M/s Dilip Kumar And Company. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

RAMJI VAISH,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT(CC), ALLAHABAD

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

disallowance ignoring that conditions of exception from application of section 40A(3) r/w Rule 6DD(j) needs to be strictly interpreted by applying the Hayden's rule of Mischief and also the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of customs Vs M/s Dilip Kumar And Company. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

RAMJI VAISH,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT(CC), ALLAHABAD

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

disallowance ignoring that conditions of exception from application of section 40A(3) r/w Rule 6DD(j) needs to be strictly interpreted by applying the Hayden's rule of Mischief and also the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of customs Vs M/s Dilip Kumar And Company. 8. On the facts and circumstances of 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

disallowance ignoring that conditions of exception from application of section 40A(3) r/w Rule 6DD(j) needs to be strictly interpreted by applying the Hayden's rule of Mischief and also the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of customs Vs M/s Dilip Kumar And Company. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case