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 same on the grounds that these are not regular business expenses, while ld. CIT(A) has allowed the same as business expenses u/s 37(1) of the 1961 Act. In our considered view , the applicability of provision of Section 36(1)(iv) read with Schedule IV of the Income-tax Act,1961, 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

88,263/-, which was processed by CPC, Bengaluru u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act and intimation vide orders dated 30.04.2020 was issued assessing total income of the assessee at Rs. 7,15,86,250/-, wherein , inter-alia, an amount of Rs. 11,20,461/- was added to income of the assessee by invoking provisions of Section

M/S MILLENIUM CONSULTANTS& SERVICE PROVIDERS,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallowed the export commission charges paid by the assessee to M/s. Steel Crackers Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 40,82,089/- while stating that the tax deducted at source (TDS) on such commission amount on 07.07.2004, 07.09.2004 and 07.10.2004 ought to have been deposited by the Respondent before the end of the previous year i.e. 31.03.2005 to get the commission

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 40(a)(ia) and 43B. It was submitted by ld. DR that the assessee has submitted details/evidences / explanations for the first time before ld. CIT(A) , and that the no remand report was called by CIT(A) from AO , which is in breach of Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962.The prayers were made

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 40(a)(ia) and 43B. It was submitted by ld. DR that the assessee has submitted details/evidences / explanations for the first time before ld. CIT(A) , and that the no remand report was called by CIT(A) from AO , which is in breach of Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962.The prayers were made

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 40(a)(ia) and 43B. It was submitted by ld. DR that the assessee has submitted details/evidences / explanations for the first time before ld. CIT(A) , and that the no remand report was called by CIT(A) from AO , which is in breach of Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962.The prayers were made

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

88 12. In the group of cases of Shri Navin Jain and others in I.T.(SS)A. Nos.639 to 641/Lkw/2019, etc., vide order dated 3.8.2021, for Assessment Years 2015-16 to 2017-18, on which reliance has been placed by the ld. counsel for the assessee, a similar issue has been considered by the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal, wherein

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

88 12. In the group of cases of Shri Navin Jain and others in I.T.(SS)A. Nos.639 to 641/Lkw/2019, etc., vide order dated 3.8.2021, for Assessment Years 2015-16 to 2017-18, on which reliance has been placed by the ld. counsel for the assessee, a similar issue has been considered by the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal, wherein

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

88 12. In the group of cases of Shri Navin Jain and others in I.T.(SS)A. Nos.639 to 641/Lkw/2019, etc., vide order dated 3.8.2021, for Assessment Years 2015-16 to 2017-18, on which reliance has been placed by the ld. counsel for the assessee, a similar issue has been considered by the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal, wherein

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

88 12. In the group of cases of Shri Navin Jain and others in I.T.(SS)A. Nos.639 to 641/Lkw/2019, etc., vide order dated 3.8.2021, for Assessment Years 2015-16 to 2017-18, on which reliance has been placed by the ld. counsel for the assessee, a similar issue has been considered by the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal, wherein

DILIP KUMAR KHETAN,AMBEDKARNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMBEDKARNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2013-14 Dilip Kumar Khetan V. Income Tax Officer Proprietor Dilip Yarn Traders Ambedkarnagar-224149. Jalalpur, Ambedkarnagar-224149. Tan/Pan: Aaspk9710B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Kumar Mishra Respondent By: Shri A.K. Singh, Cit ( Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2021 O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao:

disallowance of expenses of Rs.20,892 @ 12.5% out of shop expenses, travelling expenses and Vehicle running and maintenance expenses as against addition of Rs.41,785 made by the A.O. @ 25% of Gross expenses claimed at Rs.167,141, without considering the audit report. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals ) has erred in law and on facts in failing

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

88,530/-. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued by ITO-3(1), Varanasi on 21.09.2016 since the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Subsequently, this case was transferred to the ITO-3(1), Mirzapur, who completed the assessment on 28.12.2017. Several notices were issued to the assessee under section

I.T.O., WARD-1(4), ALLAHABAD vs. RAGHAV WADHAWAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer V. Shri Raghav Wadhawan Ward 1(4) C-51, 3Rd Floor Allahabad Friends Colony New Delhi Tan/Pan:Aaopw9056A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S. K. Madhuk, Cit (Dr) Respondent By: Shri Ashok Kumar, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 20 11 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 11 2019 O R D E R

88 ITR 192 (SC) and ‘Smt. Tarunlata Shyam vs. CIT’, 108 ITR 345 (SC); and that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not taking into consideration the decision rendered by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ‘Smt. Leena J Shah vs. ACIT’, 6 SOT 721 (Ahd). 5. Per contra, on behalf of the assessee

VIJAY STONE PRODUCT,SONEBHADRA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 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

88,590/- for the year under consideration as against NIL return is highly unjustified and against the provision of the Act hence such order is nullify, void and liable to be declared illegal. 3. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 18,25,727/- as maintained by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as per para

VIJAY STONE PRODUCT,SONEBHADRA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 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

88,590/- for the year under consideration as against NIL return is highly unjustified and against the provision of the Act hence such order is nullify, void and liable to be declared illegal. 3. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 18,25,727/- as maintained by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as per para

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

88,590/- for the year under consideration as against NIL return is highly unjustified and against the provision of the Act hence such order is nullify, void and liable to be declared illegal. 3. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 18,25,727/- as maintained by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as per para

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

88,590/- for the year under consideration as against NIL return is highly unjustified and against the provision of the Act hence such order is nullify, void and liable to be declared illegal. 3. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 18,25,727/- as maintained by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as per para

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

88,590/- for the year under consideration as against NIL return is highly unjustified and against the provision of the Act hence such order is nullify, void and liable to be declared illegal. 3. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 18,25,727/- as maintained by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as per para