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

disallowed a sum of Rs.73,02,000/- claimed by assessee as deduction from business income , and made additions to income of the assessee, because as per AO the sameare not allowable as deduction from business income as per provisions of the 1961 Act, vide assessment order dated 27.03.2015 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. 5. Aggrieved

SBW UDYOG LIMITED,,PRAYAGRAJ vs. DCIT, CIR-1,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh.Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2021-22 Sbw Udyog Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 44, Thornhill Road, Prayagraj Tax, Circle-1, Prayagraj Pan:Aadcs2883B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. N.C. Agrawal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .03.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 31.01.2024, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cpc Bengaluru, Under Section, 143(1) Dated 17.10.2022. Subsequently, The Said Appeal Was Migrated To The Nfac & Later On, The Appeal Proceedings Were Transferred To The Additional / Jcit(A), Aurangabad, Who Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because, Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India Has Observed In The Notice Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Reads As Under:- "The Income Tax Department Recognizes & Is Sensitive To The Hardships Being Faced By Taxpayers In Coping With The Challenges Posed By Covid-19 Pandemic." Consequently, Appeal Is Liable To Be Allowed.

45,352.00 17.03.2021 2021 Paid to Director, ESI Kanpur AUGUST,2020 E.S.I. 2,346.00 15.09.2020 2,346.00 16.09.2020 Paid to Director, ESI Indore AUGUST, ESI 539.00 15.09.2020 539.00 16.09.2020 2020 Total 43,04,355.00 3. The assessee submitted before the ld. CIT(A), that section 36(1)(va) of the Act was to be read with section

M/S. SUBHASH STONE INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NAINITAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallowance under various heads to the tune of Rs. 6,26,650/- and completed the assessment u/s 143(3), vide order dated 21-12- 2010. The Assessing Officer while framing the assessment u/s 153A of the Act has added an amount of Rs. 6,26,650/- which was earlier added U/s 143(3) of the Act. It is relevant

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

disallowance by Rs.73,16,513/- on account of bogus purchases even though the facts brought on records by the AO have been admitted by the CIT(A). 6. That the order of the Ld. CIT (A) being erroneous in law and on facts needs to be vacated and the order of the A.O. be restored.” 2. The facts

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

disallowance by Rs.73,16,513/- on account of bogus purchases even though the facts brought on records by the AO have been admitted by the CIT(A). 6. That the order of the Ld. CIT (A) being erroneous in law and on facts needs to be vacated and the order of the A.O. be restored.” 2. The facts

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely erred in giving partial relief of Rs.88,000/- only (i.e. restricting addition of 50% which has been calculated @ 5% of Rs.35,20,000/-), even after having accepting the fact that

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely erred in giving partial relief of Rs.88,000/- only (i.e. restricting addition of 50% which has been calculated @ 5% of Rs.35,20,000/-), even after having accepting the fact that

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely erred in giving partial relief of Rs.88,000/- only (i.e. restricting addition of 50% which has been calculated @ 5% of Rs.35,20,000/-), even after having accepting the fact that

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely erred in giving partial relief of Rs.88,000/- only (i.e. restricting addition of 50% which has been calculated @ 5% of Rs.35,20,000/-), even after having accepting the fact that

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely erred in giving partial relief of Rs.88,000/- only (i.e. restricting addition of 50% which has been calculated @ 5% of Rs.35,20,000/-), even after having accepting the fact that

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely erred in giving partial relief of Rs.88,000/- only (i.e. restricting addition of 50% which has been calculated @ 5% of Rs.35,20,000/-), even after having accepting the fact that

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely erred in giving partial relief of Rs.88,000/- only (i.e. restricting addition of 50% which has been calculated @ 5% of Rs.35,20,000/-), even after having accepting the fact that

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely erred in giving partial relief of Rs.88,000/- only (i.e. restricting addition of 50% which has been calculated @ 5% of Rs.35,20,000/-), even after having accepting the fact that

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely erred in giving partial relief of Rs.88,000/- only (i.e. restricting addition of 50% which has been calculated @ 5% of Rs.35,20,000/-), even after having accepting the fact that

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely erred in giving partial relief of Rs.88,000/- only (i.e. restricting addition of 50% which has been calculated @ 5% of Rs.35,20,000/-), even after having accepting the fact that

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

In the result, both appeals i

45,911/- shown in the ledger account as sales, because it A.Y.2009-10 M/s Deora Electric Works could not be presumed that the payment for supply of a 30 KV generator set could be made in parts. Therefore, he held that the explanation of the assessee was not acceptable and accordingly he added back the difference of contractual receipts

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

In the result, both appeals i

45,911/- shown in the ledger account as sales, because it A.Y.2009-10 M/s Deora Electric Works could not be presumed that the payment for supply of a 30 KV generator set could be made in parts. Therefore, he held that the explanation of the assessee was not acceptable and accordingly he added back the difference of contractual receipts

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

45. Ground No. 3 pertains to denial of liability to be assessed under 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. 46. Ground Nos. 5 to 8 pertain to disallowance