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

disallowance of expenses stood reduced by ld. CIT(A) to Rs. 3,98,526/- , being additions made by invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of the 1961 Act. The ld. AO observed that the assessee has claimed to have debited Marketing expenses to the tune of Rs. 12,63

M/S KESARWANI <ARKETING (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

disallowance of expenses stood reduced by ld. CIT(A) to Rs. 3,98,526/- , being additions made by invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of the 1961 Act. The ld. AO observed that the assessee has claimed to have debited Marketing expenses to the tune of Rs. 12,63

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

disallowance of expenses stood reduced by ld. CIT(A) to Rs. 3,98,526/- , being additions made by invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of the 1961 Act. The ld. AO observed that the assessee has claimed to have debited Marketing expenses to the tune of Rs. 12,63

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING (P) LTD,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT. C.IT,(OSD), ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallowance of expenses stood reduced by ld. CIT(A) to Rs. 3,98,526/- , being additions made by invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of the 1961 Act. The ld. AO observed that the assessee has claimed to have debited Marketing expenses to the tune of Rs. 12,63

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.

disallowance of house tax of Rs. 52,718/-, the assessee submitted that the details regarding the deposit of house tax had been furnished before the ld. AO and ought to have been allowed. On the issue of deduction under section 24(a), it was submitted that the assessee used to purchase the house property as investment and not for renting

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed and additions/disallowances be made to be income of the assessee and why the assessee may not be assessed accordingly. In response it was submitted that its activities of the assessee authority were of a charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15) was not applicable in its case. 7.2 The AO was not satisfied with the reply

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed and additions/disallowances be made to be income of the assessee and why the assessee may not be assessed accordingly. In response it was submitted that its activities of the assessee authority were of a charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15) was not applicable in its case. 7.2 The AO was not satisfied with the reply

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed and additions/disallowances be made to be income of the assessee and why the assessee may not be assessed accordingly. In response it was submitted that its activities of the assessee authority were of a charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15) was not applicable in its case. 7.2 The AO was not satisfied with the reply

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

63 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 64 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 65 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 66 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 67 (J.1.1) Further, in the case of Pr.CIT

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

63 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 64 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 65 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 66 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 67 (J.1.1) Further, in the case of Pr.CIT

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

63 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 64 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 65 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 66 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 67 (J.1.1) Further, in the case of Pr.CIT

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

63 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 64 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 65 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 66 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 67 (J.1.1) Further, in the case of Pr.CIT

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

PANNA LAL PRAJAPATI,MIRZAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 3(2), MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2011-12 Shri Panna Lal Prajapati, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhudev Dubey, Kai Gali, Ward-3(2), Mirzapur Bhatwa Ki Pokhari, Mirzapur Pan:Azeps1524N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl Cit(A)-Kolkata Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 27.03.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: “1. That In Any View Of The Matter Assessment Made On Income Of The Rs. 12,73,650/- By Order Dated 26.12.2018 Passed U/S 143 (3)/147 Of The I.T. Act Is Bad Both On The Facts & In Law. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter The Proceeding U/S 147 Of The Act As Initiated On The Allegation That Assessee Has Made Cash Deposit Amounting To Rs.30,63,500/- In Bank Account Which Remain Unexplained Is Not Correct Since The Cash Deposit Are From Disclosed Sources Hence The Satisfaction Recorded Is Not Correct & There Was No Independent Application Of Mind By The Assessing Officer Before Initiating Proceeding U/S 147 Of The Act. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter The Learned Cit Appeal Was Not Correct In Deciding The Appeal Ex-Parte Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity To The Assessee & The Order Not Speaking Order In The Eye Of Law.

63,500/- in his savings bank accounts at HDFC Bank Limited and Axis Bank Limited and another deposit in cash of Rs.10,35,000/-, the ld. AO issued a notice under section 148. No compliance was made by the assessee therefore, further notices under section 142(1) were issued. Subsequently, the assessee filed a return and therefore, a notice under

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

disallowance ignoring that conditions of exception from application of section 40A(3) r'w Rule 6DDj) needs to be strictly interpreted by applying the Hayden's rule of Mischief and also the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of customs Vs M/Dilip Kumar And Company 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

disallowance ignoring that conditions of exception from application of section 40A(3) r'w Rule 6DDj) needs to be strictly interpreted by applying the Hayden's rule of Mischief and also the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of customs Vs M/Dilip Kumar And Company 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case