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

Section 43B in the Finance Act, 1983, the object was to "disallow deductions claimed merely by making a book entry based on the mercantile system of accounting" (sic - para 16). Section 43B made it mandatory for the department to grant deduction in computing the income under Section 28 in the year in which the tax, duty, cess, etc. were paid

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.

disallowance was made for a sum of Rs.43,04,355/-, as being hit by section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The details were as under:- Month and Nature of Sum recd. Due date of The actual The actual Year fund From Payment amount paid date of employee payment to the concerned authorities Paid to RPFC, Titagarh

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

Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. The statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by Revenue from time to time and it is claimed by Revenue that they were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings observed from the Assessee’s Annual Report 2012 vide note no. 21 , that

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

Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. The statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by Revenue from time to time and it is claimed by Revenue that they were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings observed from the Assessee’s Annual Report 2012 vide note no. 21 , that

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

Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. The statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by Revenue from time to time and it is claimed by Revenue that they were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings observed from the Assessee’s Annual Report 2012 vide note no. 21 , that

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)

56,519 Balance carried forward 5,84,741 The provisions of Rs. 2,43,260/- made for the year under consideration has been added back by ourselves in computing our total income for the Assessment Year 1997-98 as is duly verifiable for the statement showing computation of (Page 67 of PB) no further disallowance is called for because

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

56 assessee had sought adjournment of hearing till 20/07/2017 is misleading. He pointed out that the reports under Rule 9 and 9A of ITSC(P) Rules were already on the record of the Assessing Officer, which contained all the information sought for by the Assessing Officer. Moreover, in any case, whether the assessee delayed the assessment proceedings

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

56 assessee had sought adjournment of hearing till 20/07/2017 is misleading. He pointed out that the reports under Rule 9 and 9A of ITSC(P) Rules were already on the record of the Assessing Officer, which contained all the information sought for by the Assessing Officer. Moreover, in any case, whether the assessee delayed the assessment proceedings

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

56 assessee had sought adjournment of hearing till 20/07/2017 is misleading. He pointed out that the reports under Rule 9 and 9A of ITSC(P) Rules were already on the record of the Assessing Officer, which contained all the information sought for by the Assessing Officer. Moreover, in any case, whether the assessee delayed the assessment proceedings

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

56 assessee had sought adjournment of hearing till 20/07/2017 is misleading. He pointed out that the reports under Rule 9 and 9A of ITSC(P) Rules were already on the record of the Assessing Officer, which contained all the information sought for by the Assessing Officer. Moreover, in any case, whether the assessee delayed the assessment proceedings

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowances should have been made and thus in the assessment made u/s 153A(1)(b) of the I.T. Act should have been deleted the additions and disallowances made by the AO and assessment quashed and the learned C.I.T.(A) has erred both in law as well as on facts in dismissing grounds No. 1, 2 & 3 as per his order

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowances should have been made and thus in the assessment made u/s 153A(1)(b) of the I.T. Act should have been deleted the additions and disallowances made by the AO and assessment quashed and the learned C.I.T.(A) has erred both in law as well as on facts in dismissing grounds No. 1, 2 & 3 as per his order

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowances should have been made and thus in the assessment made u/s 153A(1)(b) of the I.T. Act should have been deleted the additions and disallowances made by the AO and assessment quashed and the learned C.I.T.(A) has erred both in law as well as on facts in dismissing grounds No. 1, 2 & 3 as per his order

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

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

MADHU DUBEY,ALLAHABAD vs. DC/AC-1(1),ALLAHABAD, MG MARG ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 Madhu Dubey V. Dc/Ac-1(1) 657A/1, Jamuna Nagar, Chak Mg Marg, Allahabad- Raghunath, Naini-211008. 211001. Pan:Asipd8489J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

disallowed in want of supporting voucher of expenses and added to the income of the assessee [Addition of Rs 6,23,742/] 62 Section 68 of the Income Tax Act (ITA) 1964 refers to the treatment of unexplained cash credits. This section places the onus of proof on the taxpayer who has received any Sum of money or property

RAJESH BAJAJ,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

1) and (3) namely Alka Bajaj and Preeti Bajaj are sister-in-law of the assessee and therefore do not fall in the definition of relative as provided u/s 2(41). This fact is not disputed by the Revenue and therefore, the payment to these two persons would not fall in the ambit of provisions of section 40A(2) when

RAJESH BAJAJ,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

1) and (3) namely Alka Bajaj and Preeti Bajaj are sister-in-law of the assessee and therefore do not fall in the definition of relative as provided u/s 2(41). This fact is not disputed by the Revenue and therefore, the payment to these two persons would not fall in the ambit of provisions of section 40A(2) when