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

iv) of sub-section (1) deals with deductions on account of contribution towards a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund made by the assessee as an employer, subject to certain limits and also subject to certain conditions as the CBDT may think fit to specify. Clause (v) of sub-section (1) of section 36 enables the assessee

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

iv) of sub- section (1) deals with deductions on account of contribution towards a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund made by the assessee as an employer, subject to certain limits and also subject to certain conditions as the CBDT may think fit to specify. Clause (v) of sub- section (1) of section 36 enables the assessee

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

disallowance as was made by the AO, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under the second limb of Section 36(1)(viia)(a) of the 1961 Act which concerns itself with deduction computed @10% of aggregate average advances made by Rural Branches of assessee, keeping in view amended provisions of Section 36(1

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

disallowance as was made by the AO, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under the second limb of Section 36(1)(viia)(a) of the 1961 Act which concerns itself with deduction computed @10% of aggregate average advances made by Rural Branches of assessee, keeping in view amended 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

disallowed the same on the grounds that these are not regular business expenses, while ld. CIT(A) has allowed the same as business expenses u/s 37(1) of the 1961 Act. In our considered view , the applicability of provision of Section 36(1)(iv

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

disallowed the same on the grounds that these are not regular business expenses, while ld. CIT(A) has allowed the same as business expenses u/s 37(1) of the 1961 Act. In our considered view , the applicability of provision of Section 36(1)(iv

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

disallowing the set-off of brought forward business loss of Rs. 38,84,38,396/- and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 52,56,92,612/- against taxable income assessed by him for Rs. 27,20,480/- Detail of Brought forward Business Loss & Unabsorbed Depreciation has been furnished below: Assessment Year Business Loss (Rs.) Unabsorbed Total Brought Depreciation (Rs.) Forward Loss

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

disallowing the set-off of brought forward business loss of Rs. 38,84,38,396/- and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 52,56,92,612/- against taxable income assessed by him for Rs. 27,20,480/- Detail of Brought forward Business Loss & Unabsorbed Depreciation has been furnished below: Assessment Year Business Loss (Rs.) Unabsorbed Total Brought Depreciation (Rs.) Forward Loss

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

disallowing the set-off of brought forward business loss of Rs. 38,84,38,396/- and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 52,56,92,612/- against taxable income assessed by him for Rs. 27,20,480/- Detail of Brought forward Business Loss & Unabsorbed Depreciation has been furnished below: Assessment Year Business Loss (Rs.) Unabsorbed Total Brought Depreciation (Rs.) Forward Loss

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

iv. On account of disallowance of interest – Rs.33,570/-. v. On account of disallowance of diesel expenses – Rs.8,70,985/-. vi. On account of disallowance of commission on sales Rs.11,20,165/-. 4. Aggrieved with the said additions, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), it challenged the order passed under section

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

iv. On account of disallowance of interest – Rs.33,570/-. v. On account of disallowance of diesel expenses – Rs.8,70,985/-. vi. On account of disallowance of commission on sales Rs.11,20,165/-. 4. Aggrieved with the said additions, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), it challenged the order passed under section

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

iv. On account of disallowance of interest – Rs.33,570/-. v. On account of disallowance of diesel expenses – Rs.8,70,985/-. vi. On account of disallowance of commission on sales Rs.11,20,165/-. 4. Aggrieved with the said additions, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), it challenged the order passed under section

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

36 different assessment years in the cases of the aforesaid 11 different assessees. It was the contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee that considering the enormity of seized materials, digital data, submissions of the assessees, appraisal report provided by the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department, reports under Rules 9 and 9A of ITSC(P) Rules, and other

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

36 different assessment years in the cases of the aforesaid 11 different assessees. It was the contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee that considering the enormity of seized materials, digital data, submissions of the assessees, appraisal report provided by the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department, reports under Rules 9 and 9A of ITSC(P) Rules, and other

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

36 different assessment years in the cases of the aforesaid 11 different assessees. It was the contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee that considering the enormity of seized materials, digital data, submissions of the assessees, appraisal report provided by the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department, reports under Rules 9 and 9A of ITSC(P) Rules, and other

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

36 different assessment years in the cases of the aforesaid 11 different assessees. It was the contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee that considering the enormity of seized materials, digital data, submissions of the assessees, appraisal report provided by the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department, reports under Rules 9 and 9A of ITSC(P) Rules, and other

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

iv) of the Income Tax Act and it can be considered under section 36(1)(iii) or section 37 of the Income Tax Act. Since the CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to remand the matter therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) qua this issue is not inconformity with provisions of section 250 and 251 of the Income

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

36 REVISED GROUNDS IN I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2019 38 I.T.A. No.40/Alld/2019 (Assessment year 2013-14) 41 REVISED GROUNDS IN I.T.A. No.40/Alld/2019 44 I.T.A. No.13/Alld/2025 (Assessment year 2011-12) I.T.A. No.14/Alld/2025 (Assessment year 2013-14) I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2025 (Assessment year 2011-12) I.T.A. No.40/Lkw/2025 (Assessment year 2012-13) I.T.A. No.41/Alld/2025 (Assessment year 2013-14) C.O. NO.02/Alld/2025 (in I.T.A. No.39/Alld/2025) C.O.No.03/Alld/2025 (in I.T.A. No.40/Allahabad/2025