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

ZILA SAHKARI BANK LTD,,MIRZAPUR vs. JT. C.I.T.,, MIRZAPUR

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallowance as was made by the AO, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under the second limb of Section 36(1)(viia)(a) of the 1961 Act which concerns itself with deduction computed @10% of aggregate average advances made by Rural Branches of assessee, keeping in view amended provisions of Section

ZILA SAHKARI BANK LTD.,MIRZAPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, MIRZAPUR

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallowance as was made by the AO, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under the second limb of Section 36(1)(viia)(a) of the 1961 Act which concerns itself with deduction computed @10% of aggregate average advances made by Rural Branches of assessee, keeping in view amended provisions of Section

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

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 of PB). Since the liability of interest had duly been discharged by actual payment before the due date of filing the return the said liability, in view of 1st proviso to section 43B, should be allowed as a legitimate business expenditure for the Assessment Year 1997-98 and no disallowance should have been made. The disallowance

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallowances which proves the fact that neither assessment proceeding is as per the procedure laid down by the department nor is investigation made as expected in scrutiny assessment, hence it is very much visible that assessment has been completed without application of mind, without proper inquiry and without the consequential investigation in the business transactions. Thus, obviously the assessment order

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

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

GAYA PRASAD BAJAJ,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2012-13 Gaya Prasad Bajaj, V. Income Tax Officer, 34-A, Chak Zero Road, Ward-1(2) Allahabad, U.P. Allahabad, U.P. Pan-Aampb9895N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Abhinav Mehrotra, C.A. Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.08.2021

disallowance made is patently illegal and contrary to the true and correct facts and circumstances of the case and liable to be deleted. 3. Because, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) as also that of the Assessing Officer, is unsustainable and bad in law as the right

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed 5% of the payments made by the assessee in cash, i.e., 5% of Rs.8.00 lakhs, which came to Rs.40,000/- and the same was also added to the income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.47,43,380/-. 3.2 Aggrieved

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed 5% of the payments made by the assessee in cash, i.e., 5% of Rs.8.00 lakhs, which came to Rs.40,000/- and the same was also added to the income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.47,43,380/-. 3.2 Aggrieved

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed 5% of the payments made by the assessee in cash, i.e., 5% of Rs.8.00 lakhs, which came to Rs.40,000/- and the same was also added to the income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.47,43,380/-. 3.2 Aggrieved

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed 5% of the payments made by the assessee in cash, i.e., 5% of Rs.8.00 lakhs, which came to Rs.40,000/- and the same was also added to the income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.47,43,380/-. 3.2 Aggrieved

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed 5% of the payments made by the assessee in cash, i.e., 5% of Rs.8.00 lakhs, which came to Rs.40,000/- and the same was also added to the income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.47,43,380/-. 3.2 Aggrieved

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed 5% of the payments made by the assessee in cash, i.e., 5% of Rs.8.00 lakhs, which came to Rs.40,000/- and the same was also added to the income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.47,43,380/-. 3.2 Aggrieved