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

disallowing the set-off of brought forward business loss of Rs. 38,84,38,396/- and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 52,56,92,612/- against taxable income assessed by him for Rs. 27,20,480/- Detail of Brought forward Business Loss & Unabsorbed Depreciation has been furnished below: Assessment Year Business Loss (Rs.) Unabsorbed Total Brought Depreciation (Rs.) Forward Loss

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

disallowing the set-off of brought forward business loss of Rs. 38,84,38,396/- and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 52,56,92,612/- against taxable income assessed by him for Rs. 27,20,480/- Detail of Brought forward Business Loss & Unabsorbed Depreciation has been furnished below: Assessment Year Business Loss (Rs.) Unabsorbed Total Brought Depreciation (Rs.) Forward Loss

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

disallowing the set-off of brought forward business loss of Rs. 38,84,38,396/- and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 52,56,92,612/- against taxable income assessed by him for Rs. 27,20,480/- Detail of Brought forward Business Loss & Unabsorbed Depreciation has been furnished below: Assessment Year Business Loss (Rs.) Unabsorbed Total Brought Depreciation (Rs.) Forward Loss

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved.” Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the ground no. 1 is accordingly allowed and would govern our appreciation of the individual additions made in the course of assessment. 11. Ground no.2 relates to addition

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved.” Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the ground no. 1 is accordingly allowed and would govern our appreciation of the individual additions made in the course of assessment. 11. Ground no.2 relates to addition

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved.” Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the ground no. 1 is accordingly allowed and would govern our appreciation of the individual additions made in the course of assessment. 11. Ground no.2 relates to addition

SAVLA AGENCIES,ALLAHABAD vs. JCIT, RANGE-I, , ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2011-12 Savla Agencies, V. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, 26, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Range-I, Allahabad Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aawfs0816J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Tanmay Sadh, Adv Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.01.2023 O R D E R

section 40(b) (iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or any other applicable provision as may be enforced in the income tax assessment of the partnership firm in the relevant accounting period shall be payable to the partners on the amount outstanding to the credit of the account of the partners. Such interest shall be calculated and credited

ACIT,, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S KESARWANI & CO., ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

section 145(3). The Revenue is aggrieved that the ld. CIT(A) had failed to consider the disallowance that was made by the Revenue, after considering the seized material found during the course of search, while the assessee holds that the ld. CIT(A) ought not to have sustained an addition of Rs.100000/-, after he himself had held that

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

section 145(3). The Revenue is aggrieved that the ld. CIT(A) had failed to consider the disallowance that was made by the Revenue, after considering the seized material found during the course of search, while the assessee holds that the ld. CIT(A) ought not to have sustained an addition of Rs.100000/-, after he himself had held that

COMMERCIAL AUTO SALES PVT.LTD,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee with tribunal in ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

92,320/- , wherein three additions were made by AO to the income of the assessee, firstly by disallowing of rent of Rs. 3,00,000/- shown to have been incurred by assessee to Mrs. Madhu Gupta, Director of the assessee company towards ‘Camp Office-cum-residence of the Director ‘, secondly by disallowing of loss on sale of Vehicles ( depreciable asset

M/S BALAJU AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES(P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT. CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee and Revenue for ay: 2009-10 are allowed for statistical purposes, while CO filed by assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallow the expenses on percentage basis hence liable to be deleted. 10. That in any view of the matter the interest as charged under different section of the income tax act is highly unjustified. 11. That in any view of the matter the appellant reserves his right to take any fresh ground of appeal before hearing of the appeal

JCIT(OSD),, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S BALAJI AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES, (P) LTD., ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee and Revenue for ay: 2009-10 are allowed for statistical purposes, while CO filed by assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallow the expenses on percentage basis hence liable to be deleted. 10. That in any view of the matter the interest as charged under different section of the income tax act is highly unjustified. 11. That in any view of the matter the appellant reserves his right to take any fresh ground of appeal before hearing of the appeal

M/S BALAJI AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT,CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee and Revenue for ay: 2009-10 are allowed for statistical purposes, while CO filed by assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallow the expenses on percentage basis hence liable to be deleted. 10. That in any view of the matter the interest as charged under different section of the income tax act is highly unjustified. 11. That in any view of the matter the appellant reserves his right to take any fresh ground of appeal before hearing of the appeal

M/S BALAJI AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES(P).LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT. (0SD), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee and Revenue for ay: 2009-10 are allowed for statistical purposes, while CO filed by assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallow the expenses on percentage basis hence liable to be deleted. 10. That in any view of the matter the interest as charged under different section of the income tax act is highly unjustified. 11. That in any view of the matter the appellant reserves his right to take any fresh ground of appeal before hearing of the appeal

SANJAY MAJUMDAR,ALLAHABAD vs. PR. CIT, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Sanjay Majumdar, V. The Principal Commissioner Type Ii – 112, Devprayagam Of Income Tax, Sangam Vatika – Jhalwa, Aayakar Bhawan, Allahabad 211012 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad 211001 Pan: Adopm 2688P (Appellant) (Respondent)

92) ITA No. 96 ITR 939 (MAD). Onus to prove the cost of improvement is on the assessee that he has incurred the improvement charges before transferring the asset. Section 48 is enabling provision, which permits certain deductions from the sale consideration received by the assessee. In this case, facts are very peculiar which were not properly appreciated

M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both appeals i

92,401/- and as a result, the ld. AO had incorrectly deducted the amount of contract receipts from this figure to arrive at a concealment of Rs.1,99,86,669/-. 3.1 Thus, the ld. AO had come to a wrong conclusion, without verifying the trading and profit and loss account of the assessee which showed that the actual receipt

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both appeals i

92,401/- and as a result, the ld. AO had incorrectly deducted the amount of contract receipts from this figure to arrive at a concealment of Rs.1,99,86,669/-. 3.1 Thus, the ld. AO had come to a wrong conclusion, without verifying the trading and profit and loss account of the assessee which showed that the actual receipt

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