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 36(1

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 36(1

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

disallow the said amount by invoking Explanation 1 to Section 36(1)(va) of the 1961 Act but the said amount admittedly stood deposited by assessee to the credit of employee with relevant fund before the time prescribed for filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the 1961 Act. Aggrieved by an assessment framed

DCIT, CIRCLE-II , ALLAHABAD vs. BHARAT PUMPS & COMPRESSORS LTD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallow the said amount by invoking Explanation 1 to Section 36(1)(va) of the 1961 Act but the said amount admittedly stood deposited by assessee to the credit of employee with relevant fund before the time prescribed for filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the 1961 Act. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd. Assessment Years

DCIT, CIRCLE-II , ALLAHABAD vs. BHARAT PUMPS & COMPRESSORS LTD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallow the said amount by invoking Explanation 1 to Section 36(1)(va) of the 1961 Act but the said amount admittedly stood deposited by assessee to the credit of employee with relevant fund before the time prescribed for filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the 1961 Act. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd. Assessment Years

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

c) is used in entirely different senses, in the relevant deduction clauses. The differentiation is also evident from the fact that each of these contributions is separately dealt with in different clauses of section 36 (1). All these establish 4 Vinod Kumar Tandon that Parliament, while introducing section 36(1)(va) along with Section 2(24)(x), was aware

SHRI KAMALENDRA BHADUR MISHRA,,SONEBHADRA vs. DCIT, RANGE-III, MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kamalendra Bhadur Mishra V. Dcit Prop. M/S K.S. Engineearing Range Iii Iii-19, Jme Colony Mirzapur Shakti Dnagar, Sonebhadra Tan/Pan:Adbpm4445K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K.R. Singh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13 02 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 02 2020 O R D E R

disallowed in ITA No.240/ALLD/2017 Page 3 of 7 computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of section 271(1)(c), be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed; that therefore, since in the present case, the assessee has not been able to substantiate the explanation offered

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 of Rs.43,04,355/- under section 36(1)(va)of the Act on delayed payment of Provident Fund and ESI received from the employees. Accordingly the grounds raised on this issue were dismissed. 4. The assessee is aggrieved with this order of the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) and has accordingly filed this appeal. Dr. N.C. Aggarwal, C.A. (hereinafter referred

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

6,80,29,000.00 84,60,929.00 7,64,89,929.00 Total 38,84,38,396.00 52,56,92,612.00 91,41,31,008.00 Copy of assessment orders u/s 143(1)/143(3)/154 for the assessment years 2006- 07 , 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12 has been enclosed from Page No. 03-34 for your perusal.” A.Ys

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

6,80,29,000.00 84,60,929.00 7,64,89,929.00 Total 38,84,38,396.00 52,56,92,612.00 91,41,31,008.00 Copy of assessment orders u/s 143(1)/143(3)/154 for the assessment years 2006- 07 , 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12 has been enclosed from Page No. 03-34 for your perusal.” A.Ys

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

6,80,29,000.00 84,60,929.00 7,64,89,929.00 Total 38,84,38,396.00 52,56,92,612.00 91,41,31,008.00 Copy of assessment orders u/s 143(1)/143(3)/154 for the assessment years 2006- 07 , 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12 has been enclosed from Page No. 03-34 for your perusal.” A.Ys

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

1,50,000/- c) Disallowance on account of donation paid Rs. 51,000/- d) Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of TDS Rs.1,19,950/- e) 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

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

6 (A.1) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. At the time of hearing before us, at the outset, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that these appeals are squarely covered by earlier order of the Allahabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Minto Developers Pvt. Ltd. (I.T.A

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

6 (A.1) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. At the time of hearing before us, at the outset, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that these appeals are squarely covered by earlier order of the Allahabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Minto Developers Pvt. Ltd. (I.T.A

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

6 (A.1) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. At the time of hearing before us, at the outset, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that these appeals are squarely covered by earlier order of the Allahabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Minto Developers Pvt. Ltd. (I.T.A

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

6 (A.1) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. At the time of hearing before us, at the outset, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that these appeals are squarely covered by earlier order of the Allahabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Minto Developers Pvt. Ltd. (I.T.A

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)

6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in the law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 91,508/- on a/c of P.F. / E.P.F of the employees of the company, by merely reproducing the assessee’s submissions and without discussing the issue raised by the Assessing officer. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred

RAJESH KUMAR JAISWAL,,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY/ACIT(CENTRAL), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: the query raised by the assessing authority vide questionnaire issued under section 142 (1) dated 23.01.2021, in assessment proceedings for the AY 2018-19.

1,37,67,050/-. He asked the assessee to furnish the details in the form of ledger accounts and confirmations and the assessee unable to furnish the ledger accounts or confirmations in respect of credits owed to M/s A.B. Traders of Rs. 2 Lacs and M/s Narayan Marketing of Rs.1,96,606/-. 5 A.Y.2018-19 Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal Accordingly