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

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

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

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

Section 36(1)(va) read with Explanation 1 and Section 2(24)(x) of the 1961 Act. Similarly, Hon'ble Kerala High Court has also decided this issue in favour of Revenue in the case of CIT v. Merchem Limited reported in (2015) 378 ITR 443(Ker. HC) and also in Popular Vehicles and Services Private Limited

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

Section 36(1)(va) read with Explanation 1 and Section 2(24)(x) of the 1961 Act. Similarly, Hon'ble Kerala High Court has also decided this issue in favour of Revenue in the case of CIT v. Merchem Limited reported in (2015) 378 ITR 443(Ker. HC) and also in Popular Vehicles and Services Private Limited

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed under section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4-1984 ** ** ** 22. It is important to note once again that, by the Finance Act, 2003, not only is the second proviso deleted but even the first proviso is sought to be amended by bringing about a uniformity in tax, duty, cess

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

III, Lucknow (hereinafter called "the CIT(A)"), for assessment year(ay):2008-09, the appellate proceedings had arisen before learned CIT(A) from assessment order dated 30.03.2013 passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called "the AO") under Section 153A 1 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s Subhash Stone Industries Private Limited (Formerly Rajluxmi Stone Crushers Private Limited) v. Deputy Commissioner

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 36(1)(iii). Observing that the assessee had unsecured loans amounting to Rs.2,38,32,073/- and interest on capital amounting to Rs.31,94,098/- had been paid, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the decision of the ld. AO to disallow interest of Rs.33,520/-. Finally, with regard to the disallowance of Rs.8,70,985/- under the head diesel

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 36(1)(iii). Observing that the assessee had unsecured loans amounting to Rs.2,38,32,073/- and interest on capital amounting to Rs.31,94,098/- had been paid, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the decision of the ld. AO to disallow interest of Rs.33,520/-. Finally, with regard to the disallowance of Rs.8,70,985/- under the head diesel

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 36(1)(iii). Observing that the assessee had unsecured loans amounting to Rs.2,38,32,073/- and interest on capital amounting to Rs.31,94,098/- had been paid, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the decision of the ld. AO to disallow interest of Rs.33,520/-. Finally, with regard to the disallowance of Rs.8,70,985/- under the head diesel

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

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

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 PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order

SURENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CIR-2, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2002-03 Surendra Kumar Mishra, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 794A/1, Sohabatiyabagh, Income Tax, Circle-2, Allahabad Allahabad-211006, U.P. Pan:Aibpm4858R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Under Section 250 R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.10.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Dismissing The 'Additional Ground' Relating To Non-Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act, Raised Before The Appellate Authority During The Course Of First Round Of Litigation, Which Has Been Remanded Back By The Hon'Ble Itat In Terms Of Order Dated 09.11.2012, By Observing That The Return Filed By The Appellant In Terms Of Letter Dated 10.11.2008 As Not A Valid Return In Compliance To Notice Dated 11.02.2008 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act, As The Said Letter Was Filed By The Appellant After The Time Limit Of 30 Days Provided To Do So In Terms Of Notice Dated 11.02.208 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act. 2. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Observing That The Appellant Could Not Have Demand For Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The 1 Surendra Kumar Mishra

6. The case was again taken up for hearing by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. The assessee filed a written submission in which he relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Rajiv Sharma (supra) and Mukesh Kumar Agarwal (supra). In a nutshell, he submitted that all the judgments, including the judgment

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.

6. The ld. CIT(A) duly considered the arguments of the assessee and on the various issues raised before him, he ruled as under:- a. That house tax was allowable to the assessee whether the income was assessed to tax either as income from business or income from house property. Accordingly, the ld. AO was directed to allow the deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL CIRCLE), ALLAHABAD vs. JEEVAN JYOTI CHARITABLE TRUST, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

6. Minto Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. A.Y.-2009-10 7. Jeevan Joti Infrastructure Co. Pvt. Ltd. A.Y.2012-13 - Further relevant documents/evidences are placed in another part (i.e. Part-3) COMMON PAPER BOOK – PART-3 S.No. Description of documents enclosed 1. - Assessing Officer's letter (alongwith “corrected/revised draft assessment orders” soliciting Approval u/s 153D in the various cases), dated 28/07/2017 83 COMMON PAPER