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 Rs. 3,98,526/- under the various heads of business expenditures maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is highly unjustified as the provision of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable hence the addition under Section 40

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 Rs. 3,98,526/- under the various heads of business expenditures maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is highly unjustified as the provision of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable hence the addition under Section 40

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 Rs. 3,98,526/- under the various heads of business expenditures maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is highly unjustified as the provision of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable hence the addition under Section 40

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 Rs. 3,98,526/- under the various heads of business expenditures maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is highly unjustified as the provision of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable hence the addition under Section 40

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

Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act and thereby meeting the said disallowance of interest on capital of Rs.3

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

40,434 seized documents, 7 CPUs, 26 HDDs and one laptop seized during the search u/s 132 of the Act. The expert has opined that the storage of this data would require a memory of 200GB and that it was impossible to store it on a pen drive of 8GB capacity. The learned Counsel for the assessee also submitted that

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

40,434 seized documents, 7 CPUs, 26 HDDs and one laptop seized during the search u/s 132 of the Act. The expert has opined that the storage of this data would require a memory of 200GB and that it was impossible to store it on a pen drive of 8GB capacity. The learned Counsel for the assessee also submitted that

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

40,434 seized documents, 7 CPUs, 26 HDDs and one laptop seized during the search u/s 132 of the Act. The expert has opined that the storage of this data would require a memory of 200GB and that it was impossible to store it on a pen drive of 8GB capacity. The learned Counsel for the assessee also submitted that

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

40,434 seized documents, 7 CPUs, 26 HDDs and one laptop seized during the search u/s 132 of the Act. The expert has opined that the storage of this data would require a memory of 200GB and that it was impossible to store it on a pen drive of 8GB capacity. The learned Counsel for the assessee also submitted that

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 153A. where the recovery of incriminating material during the search is a pre requisite for a sustainable addition on this account. Therefore, in view of the same, we hold that there is no basis to hold that the discrepancy in stock in the two Form 3CDs was on any account, other than clerical error and no case of sale

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 153A. where the recovery of incriminating material during the search is a pre requisite for a sustainable addition on this account. Therefore, in view of the same, we hold that there is no basis to hold that the discrepancy in stock in the two Form 3CDs was on any account, other than clerical error and no case of sale

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 153A. where the recovery of incriminating material during the search is a pre requisite for a sustainable addition on this account. Therefore, in view of the same, we hold that there is no basis to hold that the discrepancy in stock in the two Form 3CDs was on any account, other than clerical error and no case of sale

M/S KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

40,69,013.00 was made under the head suppress production which was deleted in appeals and no reference filed even before the High Court. Thus the assessee’s case is well covered by decision passed by the appellate court. (d) That in the entire block period of assessment there is no whispers about the invoking of provision of section

ACIT,, ALLAHABAD vs. KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

40,69,013.00 was made under the head suppress production which was deleted in appeals and no reference filed even before the High Court. Thus the assessee’s case is well covered by decision passed by the appellate court. (d) That in the entire block period of assessment there is no whispers about the invoking of provision of section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both appeals i

40,230/-. Assessment in this case was completed under section 143(3) on 30.12.2011. Subsequently, it was noticed that the assessee had not shown its contractual receipts correctly. In the details of receipts, the assessee had shown only Rs.55,05,722/-, whereas the actual receipts as reflected in Form 16 A was Rs.7,54,92,401/-. This

M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both appeals i

40,230/-. Assessment in this case was completed under section 143(3) on 30.12.2011. Subsequently, it was noticed that the assessee had not shown its contractual receipts correctly. In the details of receipts, the assessee had shown only Rs.55,05,722/-, whereas the actual receipts as reflected in Form 16 A was Rs.7,54,92,401/-. This

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 6DDj) 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/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 6DDj) 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/Dilip Kumar And Company 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case