VINOD KUMAR TANDON,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT(CPC),, BEGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

55 as under:- “31. Section 43B falls in Part-V of the IT Act. What is apparent is that the scheme of the Act is such that Sections 28 to 38 deal with different kinds of deductions, whereas sections 40 to 43B spell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for assessments and expressly prescribing conditions for disallowances. In terms

DINESH KUMAR SINGH,MIRZAPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act, and statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the AO to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked by AO to furnish Profit and Loss account .On perusal on the same, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed Rs. 55,610/- under

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)

2,00,14,490/-, and the assessee has not submitted proof regarding such payment of unpaid sales tax liability to the tune of Rs. 48,172/- being made before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1), along with return of income filed with Revenue. The AO invoked provisions of Section 43B and disallowed the said

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

55 (I.2) The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted further that the reliance of the learned Departmental Representatives on precedents of Hon'ble Courts, pertaining to section 158BG of the Act to draw equivalence with section 153D of the Act deserved to be rejected outrightly because section 158BG pertained to block assessment order in which, under the mandate

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

55 (I.2) The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted further that the reliance of the learned Departmental Representatives on precedents of Hon'ble Courts, pertaining to section 158BG of the Act to draw equivalence with section 153D of the Act deserved to be rejected outrightly because section 158BG pertained to block assessment order in which, under the mandate

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

55 (I.2) The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted further that the reliance of the learned Departmental Representatives on precedents of Hon'ble Courts, pertaining to section 158BG of the Act to draw equivalence with section 153D of the Act deserved to be rejected outrightly because section 158BG pertained to block assessment order in which, under the mandate

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

55 (I.2) The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted further that the reliance of the learned Departmental Representatives on precedents of Hon'ble Courts, pertaining to section 158BG of the Act to draw equivalence with section 153D of the Act deserved to be rejected outrightly because section 158BG pertained to block assessment order in which, under the mandate

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

55,232.00 as per Para 7 of the assessment order by saying bogus liabilities is incorrect and the entire discussions in the relevant Para are contrary to the actual facts of the case when the appellant furnished documents and proofs also but the two lower authorities failed to consider the issue in appropriate manner hence the addition as made

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

55,232.00 as per Para 7 of the assessment order by saying bogus liabilities is incorrect and the entire discussions in the relevant Para are contrary to the actual facts of the case when the appellant furnished documents and proofs also but the two lower authorities failed to consider the issue in appropriate manner hence the addition as made

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 of Proportionate Expenses Rs.1,55,700/- ----------------- Total Rs. 6,26,650/- 5 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s Subhash Stone Industries Private Limited (Formerly Rajluxmi Stone Crushers Private Limited) v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad ------------------- Hence, an addition of Rs. 6,26,650/- was made by the AO to the income of the assessee on the aforestated

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.

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 43B of the Act and contribution of Provident Fund and ESI paid till the filing of the return

POOJA GROVER,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CIR-2,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

2) of section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. BECAUSE the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining disallowance of depreciation to the extent of Rs.5,29,827/- on the ground that supporting bills and vouchers to the extent of Rs.21,55

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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. 28. Ground No. 2 pertains to disallowance made on account of difference in figures as recorded in KZ 1 and the regular accounts presented along

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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. 28. Ground No. 2 pertains to disallowance made on account of difference in figures as recorded in KZ 1 and the regular accounts presented along

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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. 28. Ground No. 2 pertains to disallowance made on account of difference in figures as recorded in KZ 1 and the regular accounts presented along

ANIL KUMAR GUPTA,PANCHKULA(HARYANA) vs. DCIT, CIR- 1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.18/Alld/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बनधम/ Anil Kumar Gupta Dcit, Circle-1 House No.452P, Sector-25, Income Tax Office, 38, Vs. Panchkula-134109. M. G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh- 211001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aatpg1541K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Asit Hajela Revenue By: Shri A. K. Singh (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 21.12.2022 For Ay. 2013-14. 2. Ground No. 1 To 3 Are Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Disallowance Of Unpaid Service Tax Liability Of Rs.10,92,548/- U/S 43B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 3. The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Running A Concern Of Providing Security Guard & Manpower. The Assessee Has Been Consistently Following Mercantile System Of Accounting For Earlier As Well As Subsequent Years. & Assessee From Inception Is Registered Under The Service Tax & Regularly Depositing Service Tax In The Relevant Government Account. In The Year Under Consideration, The Ao Noted From Perusal Of The Balance-Sheet That Rs.10,92,548/- Pertaining

2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.The decision is clearly distinguishable in its application to the present case. Here we are concerned with an assessed who has not even claimed any deduction on the ground of service tax and has not debited the amount to its Profit & Loss Account. Moreover the provisions of Section

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

55,770/-made on the basis of diaries do not constitute books of accounts as no evidence or any corroborative evidence found in support of the entries recorded in diary hence addition not is uncalled for. 12. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs.8,03,936/- as per 6.1 of the order by alleging seized annexure

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

55,770/-made on the basis of diaries do not constitute books of accounts as no evidence or any corroborative evidence found in support of the entries recorded in diary hence addition not is uncalled for. 12. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs.8,03,936/- as per 6.1 of the order by alleging seized annexure

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD vs. VIJAY STONE PRODUCTS, SONEBHADRA

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

55,770/-made on the basis of diaries do not constitute books of accounts as no evidence or any corroborative evidence found in support of the entries recorded in diary hence addition not is uncalled for. 12. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs.8,03,936/- as per 6.1 of the order by alleging seized annexure