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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of set off of brought forward business loss amounting to Rs.38,84,38,396/- & unabsorbed

ARUP BANERJI,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Arup Banerji, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 14/18, Elgin Road, Allahabad Income Tax, Circle-1, Allahabad Pan:Acupb7330A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 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), Nfac Dismissing His Appeal Against The Order Of The Dcit, Circle-1, Allahabad Passed On 30.12.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That Appellant Does Not Want To Pursue The Appeal & Dismissing Appeal Ex- Party Without Affording An Adequate & Effective Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Allowing The Set-Off Of Loss From Derivative Trading Of Rs. 66,05,524/- Brought Forward From Assessment Year 2008-09 Against The Current Year Income Of Rs. 60,19,056/- Earned From Derivative Trading. 3. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Wrongly Conceived The Fact That Appellant Has Brought Forward Loss From Trading In 'Commodity Derivatives' As Per Clause (E) Of Section 43(5) Whereas The Appellant Has Brought Forward Loss From Trading In 'Derivative' As Per Clause

loss, it could not be set off cannot be allowed for as adjustment from derivative trading. He, therefore, computed the income from derivative trading at Rs.61,39,464/-, disallowed

ARUP BANERJI,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: SH. SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

disallowance of set off of loss from derivative trading against the normal business income was unjustified and the set off was deserving

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

disallowance of loss of Rs. 1,40,689/- on sale of vehicle(depreciable). After hearing both the parties , the ground number 5 concerning claim of deduction towards ‘loss on sale of vehicle’ stood dismissed. We order accordingly. 6. Now, coming to the next effective ground concerning claim of deduction towards Rent incurred to Madhu Gupta, Director

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)

loss account0 no further disallowance is called for and disallowance on this score should be deleted.” 6.3 The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire additions as were made by AO, vide appellate order dated 05.07.2016, by holding as under; “4.2 Decision: Admittedly, Rs. 4,74,013/- had been paid before the due date of filing of the return of income

KESARWANI MARKETING(P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

loss account as the said amount relates to business expenditure paid to distributor for business promotion therefore the provision of TDSare at all not applicable hence the addition as maintained is unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 13,64,337.00 was maintained by the Commissioner

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

loss account as the said amount relates to business expenditure paid to distributor for business promotion therefore the provision of TDSare at all not applicable hence the addition as maintained is unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 13,64,337.00 was maintained by the Commissioner

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

disallowance had been made after considering the seized material and the details of which had been discussed in the assessment order. The assessee, in its cross objection, has supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). The facts of the case are that a, “register of details of goods sold against tax invoices” (Form

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

disallowance had been made after considering the seized material and the details of which had been discussed in the assessment order. The assessee, in its cross objection, has supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). The facts of the case are that a, “register of details of goods sold against tax invoices” (Form

ACIT,, ALLAHABAD vs. KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

set of facts no such disallowances were made nor there is any provision in the income tax act to disallowance a genuine claim of expenses on the percentage basis therefore the disallowance deserves to be deleted.” I.T.A. No.12/Alld/2014 (Revenue’s appeal) “1. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in facts and circumstances of the case by allowing a relief

M/S KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

set of facts no such disallowances were made nor there is any provision in the income tax act to disallowance a genuine claim of expenses on the percentage basis therefore the disallowance deserves to be deleted.” I.T.A. No.12/Alld/2014 (Revenue’s appeal) “1. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in facts and circumstances of the case by allowing a relief

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

loss accounts, made the addition to the extent of Rs.20,76,268/-. Similarly, he had made an addition of Rs.11,20,165/- by disallowance on the commission of sales, without audit report. It was submitted that the assessee had a head office at Sahson, Allahabad and branches at Mumbai and Chandkheda, Ahmedabad and for this purpose, three different sets

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

loss accounts, made the addition to the extent of Rs.20,76,268/-. Similarly, he had made an addition of Rs.11,20,165/- by disallowance on the commission of sales, without audit report. It was submitted that the assessee had a head office at Sahson, Allahabad and branches at Mumbai and Chandkheda, Ahmedabad and for this purpose, three different sets

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

loss accounts, made the addition to the extent of Rs.20,76,268/-. Similarly, he had made an addition of Rs.11,20,165/- by disallowance on the commission of sales, without audit report. It was submitted that the assessee had a head office at Sahson, Allahabad and branches at Mumbai and Chandkheda, Ahmedabad and for this purpose, three different sets

ANIL KUMAR GUPTA,PANCHKULA(HARYANA) vs. DCIT, CIR- 1, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.18/Alld/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बनधम/ Anil Kumar Gupta Dcit, Circle-1 House No.452P, Sector-25, Income Tax Office, 38, Vs. Panchkula-134109. M. G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh- 211001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aatpg1541K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Asit Hajela Revenue By: Shri A. K. Singh (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 21.12.2022 For Ay. 2013-14. 2. Ground No. 1 To 3 Are Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Disallowance Of Unpaid Service Tax Liability Of Rs.10,92,548/- U/S 43B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 3. The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Running A Concern Of Providing Security Guard & Manpower. The Assessee Has Been Consistently Following Mercantile System Of Accounting For Earlier As Well As Subsequent Years. & Assessee From Inception Is Registered Under The Service Tax & Regularly Depositing Service Tax In The Relevant Government Account. In The Year Under Consideration, The Ao Noted From Perusal Of The Balance-Sheet That Rs.10,92,548/- Pertaining

set aside the order of the Tribunal and restore it back to the file of the Tribunal with certain observations. Therefore, according to the Ld. AR, the foundation on the basis of which the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO has been removed. Therefore, according to him, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this

DINESH KUMAR SINGH,MIRZAPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

loss account. AO has never pointed out this discrepancy to the assessee nor has verified this fact from the respective angle. (viii) While making lump sum disallowance, AO has failed to reject the books of accounts and velocity of accounting system and has proceed to lump sum disallowances which proves the fact that neither assessment proceeding

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

In the result, both appeals i

loss account of the assessee under different heads, due to the requirements of indirect taxes which had separate levies upon separate kinds of receipts. Therefore, the disallowance had been made by incomplete appreciation of the facts and since the ld. AO had failed to consider the entire extent of receipts by the assessee, the addition made by him could

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

In the result, both appeals i

loss account of the assessee under different heads, due to the requirements of indirect taxes which had separate levies upon separate kinds of receipts. Therefore, the disallowance had been made by incomplete appreciation of the facts and since the ld. AO had failed to consider the entire extent of receipts by the assessee, the addition made by him could