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

1)(viia) of the 1961 Act under the second limb wherein the deduction claimed @10% of aggregate average advances made by Rural Branches of the assessee, stood disallowed. The second effective issue concerns itself with disallowance of depreciation under the provisions of Section 32

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

1 and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramnath & Co. v. CIT reported in (2020) 116 taxmann.com 885(SC)(refer para 17 to 20) are relevant . Admittedly , in the instant case the aforesaid sum of Rs. 6,31,788/- being employee contribution towards PF was not deposited by assessee to the credit of employees with

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

disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of Section 43B as amended by Finance Act, 2003. 6. In the present case, the assessee had remitted the employees contribution beyond the due date for payment, but within the due date for filing the return of income. Hence, following the above-said decision, we find no reason to differ with

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

1) . The AO disallowed the entire amount of Rs. 2,32,95,170/- by invoking provisions of Section 36(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

1) . The AO disallowed the entire amount of Rs. 2,32,95,170/- by invoking provisions of Section 36(1

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

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

32 of the 1961 Act. There is Section 38(2) in statute, wherein even where the assets forms part of Block of assets , and the same is not wholly and exclusively used for business , and is partly used for personal purposes, the A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 depreciation shall be proportionately disallowed. Section 38(2) is reproduced hereunder: “Building

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

32 of the 1961 Act. There is Section 38(2) in statute, wherein even where the assets forms part of Block of assets , and the same is not wholly and exclusively used for business , and is partly used for personal purposes, the A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 depreciation shall be proportionately disallowed. Section 38(2) is reproduced hereunder: “Building

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

32 of the 1961 Act. There is Section 38(2) in statute, wherein even where the assets forms part of Block of assets , and the same is not wholly and exclusively used for business , and is partly used for personal purposes, the A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 depreciation shall be proportionately disallowed. Section 38(2) is reproduced hereunder: “Building

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)

1) in respect of previous year in which liability to pay such sum was incurred as aforesaid under clause (d) of Section 43B and evidence of such payment is furnished by the assessee along with return of income, the said sum shall be allowed in the year in which liability was incurred. Thus, Section 43B does not put any such

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

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

32 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 33 (B.2.1) We have heard both sides. We have perused materials on record. The aforesaid order dated 30/09/2025 in the case of Minto Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was delivered by us after detailed discussion of submissions made by the two sides, careful perusal of materials on record

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

32 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 33 (B.2.1) We have heard both sides. We have perused materials on record. The aforesaid order dated 30/09/2025 in the case of Minto Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was delivered by us after detailed discussion of submissions made by the two sides, careful perusal of materials on record

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

32 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 33 (B.2.1) We have heard both sides. We have perused materials on record. The aforesaid order dated 30/09/2025 in the case of Minto Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was delivered by us after detailed discussion of submissions made by the two sides, careful perusal of materials on record

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

32 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 33 (B.2.1) We have heard both sides. We have perused materials on record. The aforesaid order dated 30/09/2025 in the case of Minto Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was delivered by us after detailed discussion of submissions made by the two sides, careful perusal of materials on record

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowed under section 36(1)(iii). Observing that the assessee had unsecured loans amounting to Rs.2,38,32,073/- and interest

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowed under section 36(1)(iii). Observing that the assessee had unsecured loans amounting to Rs.2,38,32,073/- and interest

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowed under section 36(1)(iii). Observing that the assessee had unsecured loans amounting to Rs.2,38,32,073/- and interest