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

8 appeals of different Development Authorities and thereby denying exemption of section 11. (2) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in confirming denial of exemption u/s section 11. (3) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of net excess of income over expenditure of Rs.3

M/S UDVASIT BEROJGAR SAHAKARI SHRAM SAMVIDA SAMITI LTD.,,SONBHADRA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19

8. Looking at the provisions we are definite that the Act treats employer's and employee's contribution distinctly. Sub-clause (v) of Section 36(1) speaks of a gratuity fund, wherein the employee does not contribute at all. Section 36(1)(va) speaks of the employee's contribution to a welfare fund for the benefit of employees alone

SHRI NEERAJ MAHESHWARI,SONEBHADRA vs. DY. CIT, (CPC), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Before Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Neeraj Maheshwari, V. Shri Amrit Raj Singh, Bijpur Rihand Nagar, Sonebhadra- Dy. Commissioner Of Inco Tax, 2312233, U.P. Cpc Bangalore Pan- Afvpm5660E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. A.K. Pandey, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022 O R D E R

Section 36(1)(va) read with Explanation 1 and Section 2(24)(x) of the 1961 Act and deduction is not allowable going by strict and literal interpretation of provisions of the statute. Thus, once the deduction is found to be not allowable otherwise under the 1961 Act being hit by infringement of Section

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

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

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

section 48 of the Act. 12. BECAUSE the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in not allowing full deduction of expenses claimed (other than freehold charges) at Rs.15,73,360/- and in restricting the same to Rs.14,16,024/- (being 90% of the claimed amount). 13. BECAUSE adhoc disallowance to the extent of 10% of the expenses

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance of such payments is too harsh a punishment for delayed payments. Therefore, we recommend that the deduction for delayed payment of statutory liability relating to labour should be allowed in the year of payment like delayed taxes and interest." Based on the report, the Union introduced amendments to the IT Act, including an amendment to section 43B; the memorandum

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

disallowed the entire amount of Rs. 2,32,95,170/- by invoking provisions of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the 1961 Act, vide reassessment order dated 31.12.2009. 8

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

disallowed the entire amount of Rs. 2,32,95,170/- by invoking provisions of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the 1961 Act, vide reassessment order dated 31.12.2009. 8

BHAGWAN THEATERS (FIRM),ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Shree Bhagwan Theatres V. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 166. Bai Ka Bagh, Allahabad - 1(5) 211003. Allahabad-211001. Tan/Pan: Aayfs0529E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K. K. Srivastava Shri Sumit Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A.K. Singh, Cit ( Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2021 O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)- Allahabad, Both Dated 08.08.2019 For The A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. For The A.Y.2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds.- “1. Because The Authorities Below Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appellants Grounds On The Issue Of Jurisdiction. 2. Because The Appellants Ground That The Authorities Below Could Not Travel Recorded Was Illegally & Unjustifiably Dismissed Legal Aspects As Has Been Brought By The Of Hearing Of Appeal. 3. Because The Ld. Cit(A) Unjustifiably Disallowed Part Of The Remuneration Of Partner Smt. Meera Gupta & Smt. Sita Gupta Without Provisions Of Section 40(B)

8. Because the disallowances are too high and excessive and deserves to be reduced suitably. 9. Because the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice.” 3. Ground nos. 1 & 2 are regarding validity of assessment framed u/s 147 r.w. Section

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

8,03,763/- computed at the rate of seven and half percent of the total income under the first limb of Section 36(1)(viia), while the AO did not allow deduction to the tune of Rs. 1,70,81,955/- which stood disallowed by AO. The ld. CIT(A) upheld disallowance of the deduction to the tune

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

8,03,763/- computed at the rate of seven and half percent of the total income under the first limb of Section 36(1)(viia), while the AO did not allow deduction to the tune of Rs. 1,70,81,955/- which stood disallowed by AO. The ld. CIT(A) upheld disallowance of the deduction to the tune

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.

8. On the issue of disallowance of deduction under section 24(a) from rental income receipt, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee was a licensee of a liquor and a trader. His business was not into the renting out of property. If it was held that he was into the business of renting out property, then depreciation under section

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)

8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in the law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 49,310/- on a/c of short income credited in P&L a/c, by merely reproducing the assessee’s submissions and without discussing the issue raised by the Assessing Officer. 2 Assessment Year: 1997-98 Shervani Sugar Syndicate Limited 9. That

DHIRENDRA SINGH,MIRZAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(1), MIRZAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Dhirendra Singh V. Income Tax Officer Mangraha, Chunar Ward 3(1) Mirzapur Mirzapur Pan:Bipps5569C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Brij Bhushan Goenka, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 03 2025

section 143(2) of the Act was not a curable defect. Without prejudice to this legal ground, the Ld. A.R. argued that the ld. CIT(A) had erred in adding back the opening capital, without noticing that there was no scope for the assessee to show the opening capital in any previous return, as the annual income previous to this

VANDANA BANSAL L/H OF LATE DR. ASHWANI KUMAR BANSAL, ,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, 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

8 years since 31/07/2017 on which approval was given by the JCIT u/s 153D of the Act. He contended that it was impossible for the deponent Assessing Officer to remember the facts of the case including specific dates and specific letter numbers; which are found in the affidavit; after such substantial lapse of time; and similarly, it was impossible