ARUP BANERJI,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: SH. SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

1 and 2 to section 43(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, he decided to treat the loss from derivative transactions as a speculative loss and refused to allow it to be adjusted against the business income of the assessee. 3. The assessee is aggrieved at this denial of set off and accordingly filed an appeal

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

43 (iii) [2004] 267 ITR 577 (Karnataka) Rishabchand Bhansali vs. DCIT (iv) [2000] 243 ITR 425 (AP) (v) [2001] 252 ITR 712 (Madras), Lakshmi Jewellery vs. DCIT (H) Learned Departmental Representatives further contended that the approval u/s 153D of the Act was akin to approval u/s 274(2) of the Act and further that the approval

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

43 (iii) [2004] 267 ITR 577 (Karnataka) Rishabchand Bhansali vs. DCIT (iv) [2000] 243 ITR 425 (AP) (v) [2001] 252 ITR 712 (Madras), Lakshmi Jewellery vs. DCIT (H) Learned Departmental Representatives further contended that the approval u/s 153D of the Act was akin to approval u/s 274(2) of the Act and further that the approval

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

43 (iii) [2004] 267 ITR 577 (Karnataka) Rishabchand Bhansali vs. DCIT (iv) [2000] 243 ITR 425 (AP) (v) [2001] 252 ITR 712 (Madras), Lakshmi Jewellery vs. DCIT (H) Learned Departmental Representatives further contended that the approval u/s 153D of the Act was akin to approval u/s 274(2) of the Act and further that the approval

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

43 (iii) [2004] 267 ITR 577 (Karnataka) Rishabchand Bhansali vs. DCIT (iv) [2000] 243 ITR 425 (AP) (v) [2001] 252 ITR 712 (Madras), Lakshmi Jewellery vs. DCIT (H) Learned Departmental Representatives further contended that the approval u/s 153D of the Act was akin to approval u/s 274(2) of the Act and further that the approval

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

43. Ground No. 9 pertains to the disallowance of interest of Rs. 27,528/-. The ground has not been pressed by the Ld. AR, and is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn. 44. Ground No. 2 relates to the deniability to be assessed under block assessment, in view of the contention that no valid search was carried out. In view

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

43. Ground No. 9 pertains to the disallowance of interest of Rs. 27,528/-. The ground has not been pressed by the Ld. AR, and is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn. 44. Ground No. 2 relates to the deniability to be assessed under block assessment, in view of the contention that no valid search was carried out. In view

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

43. Ground No. 9 pertains to the disallowance of interest of Rs. 27,528/-. The ground has not been pressed by the Ld. AR, and is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn. 44. Ground No. 2 relates to the deniability to be assessed under block assessment, in view of the contention that no valid search was carried out. In view

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

1-3 and 7 raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with the tribunal as not being pressed. We order accordingly. 16. Ground No. 4 and 5 raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with tribunal, concerns itself with disallowance of marketing expenses to the tune of Rs.12,63,138/- made by the AO which disallowance of expenses

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

1-3 and 7 raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with the tribunal as not being pressed. We order accordingly. 16. Ground No. 4 and 5 raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with tribunal, concerns itself with disallowance of marketing expenses to the tune of Rs.12,63,138/- made by the AO which disallowance of expenses

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

1-3 and 7 raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with the tribunal as not being pressed. We order accordingly. 16. Ground No. 4 and 5 raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with tribunal, concerns itself with disallowance of marketing expenses to the tune of Rs.12,63,138/- made by the AO which disallowance of expenses

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

1-3 and 7 raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with the tribunal as not being pressed. We order accordingly. 16. Ground No. 4 and 5 raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with tribunal, concerns itself with disallowance of marketing expenses to the tune of Rs.12,63,138/- made by the AO which disallowance of expenses

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

section 145(3) of the act and once the said provision for rejection of account was not invoked then the addition made is unwarranted because for rejection of account invoking of provision of section 145(3) is a mandatory requirement. In this regard there are various decisions in support of the assessee including the decision of apex court and various

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

section 145(3) of the act and once the said provision for rejection of account was not invoked then the addition made is unwarranted because for rejection of account invoking of provision of section 145(3) is a mandatory requirement. In this regard there are various decisions in support of the assessee including the decision of apex court and various

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

43,047/- to taxation. 3. BECAUSE the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in distinguishing the following series of judgments which fully cover the issue of eligibility of exemption under section 11 and non applicability of provision to section 2(15) :- a) judgment and order dated 10.11.2006, the objects for attainment of which the appellant/Authority had come

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

43,047/- to taxation. 3. BECAUSE the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in distinguishing the following series of judgments which fully cover the issue of eligibility of exemption under section 11 and non applicability of provision to section 2(15) :- a) judgment and order dated 10.11.2006, the objects for attainment of which the appellant/Authority had come

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

43,047/- to taxation. 3. BECAUSE the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in distinguishing the following series of judgments which fully cover the issue of eligibility of exemption under section 11 and non applicability of provision to section 2(15) :- a) judgment and order dated 10.11.2006, the objects for attainment of which the appellant/Authority had come

KESARWANI MARKETING(P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 40(a) (ia) as invoked is not correct as the said provision is not applicable at all hence the action of two lower authorities are incorrect. 3. That in any view of the matter the nature of expenditure is marketing expenses incurred by the assessee company is towards reimbursement of payment made by distributors appointed by the company hence

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

section 40(a) (ia) as invoked is not correct as the said provision is not applicable at all hence the action of two lower authorities are incorrect. 3. That in any view of the matter the nature of expenditure is marketing expenses incurred by the assessee company is towards reimbursement of payment made by distributors appointed by the company hence