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

Section 36(1). By virtue of the Explanation below subclause (va), no deduction could be claimed if the contribution has not been paid, after collection from the employees by way of deduction from their salaries, within the due date under the EPF&MP Act. The deletion of a proviso under Section 43B cannot render otiose the Explanation under

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

M/S. GOVIND STONE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HAMIRPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -5(4), BANDA

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

68 read with Section 115BBE. Alternatively, it was submitted that the AO also invoked provisions of Section 56(2)(viib). The ld. Sr. DR has filed paper book containing case laws, and reliance was placed on following decisions: a) PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel Private Limited , reported in (2019) 412 ITR 161(SC) b) PCIT v. NDR Promoters

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

Section 36(1)(va) read with Explanation 1 and Section 2(24)(x) of the 1961 Act. Similarly, Hon'ble Kerala High Court has also decided this issue in favour of Revenue in the case of CIT v. Merchem Limited reported in (2015) 378 ITR 443(Ker. HC) and also in Popular Vehicles and Services Private Limited

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

Section 36(1)(va) read with Explanation 1 and Section 2(24)(x) of the 1961 Act. Similarly, Hon'ble Kerala High Court has also decided this issue in favour of Revenue in the case of CIT v. Merchem Limited reported in (2015) 378 ITR 443(Ker. HC) and also in Popular Vehicles and Services Private Limited

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

24,99,43,047/- and in subjecting the same to taxation. 2. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in sustaining the denial of exemption under section 11 read with section 12 of the Act for the reason that the same is hit by first proviso to section 2

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

24,99,43,047/- and in subjecting the same to taxation. 2. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in sustaining the denial of exemption under section 11 read with section 12 of the Act for the reason that the same is hit by first proviso to section 2

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

24,99,43,047/- and in subjecting the same to taxation. 2. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in sustaining the denial of exemption under section 11 read with section 12 of the Act for the reason that the same is hit by first proviso to section 2

MADHU DUBEY,ALLAHABAD vs. DC/AC-1(1),ALLAHABAD, MG MARG ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 Madhu Dubey V. Dc/Ac-1(1) 657A/1, Jamuna Nagar, Chak Mg Marg, Allahabad- Raghunath, Naini-211008. 211001. Pan:Asipd8489J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

24,61,182/- are recorded, but could not produced copy of challan dated 06.02 2014 of Rs 6,23, 742/-, therefore. Rs. 6,23, 742/- is disallowed in want of supporting voucher of expenses and added to the income of the assessee [Addition of Rs 6,23,742/] 62 Section 68 of the Income Tax Act (ITA) 1964 refers

NEERAJ AGRAWAL,,MIRZAPUR vs. DCIT, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, from time to time as recorded in the assessment order, which were claimed by AO to have been duly served upon the assessee. The assessee participated in the assessment proceedings. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted details before AO as also produced books of accounts as maintained

DCIT CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. SHRI NEERAJ AGRAWAL, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, from time to time as recorded in the assessment order, which were claimed by AO to have been duly served upon the assessee. The assessee participated in the assessment proceedings. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted details before AO as also produced books of accounts as maintained

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

2 ITR (Trib) 178 (Coch) and DCIT vs. Natrajan (K.)(2010), (Bangalore ITAT), to hold that the requirement that the assessment should be confined to the undisclosed income found during the search were no longer necessary under the new system of assessment. The ld. CIT(A) recorded his respectful disagreement with the decision of the Special Bench Mumbai

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

2 ITR (Trib) 178 (Coch) and DCIT vs. Natrajan (K.)(2010), (Bangalore ITAT), to hold that the requirement that the assessment should be confined to the undisclosed income found during the search were no longer necessary under the new system of assessment. The ld. CIT(A) recorded his respectful disagreement with the decision of the Special Bench Mumbai

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

2 ITR (Trib) 178 (Coch) and DCIT vs. Natrajan (K.)(2010), (Bangalore ITAT), to hold that the requirement that the assessment should be confined to the undisclosed income found during the search were no longer necessary under the new system of assessment. The ld. CIT(A) recorded his respectful disagreement with the decision of the Special Bench Mumbai

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

section 145(3) of the act and once the said provision for rejection of account was not invoked then the addition made is unwarranted because for rejection of account invoking of provision of section 145(3) is a mandatory requirement. In this regard there are various decisions in support of the assessee including the decision of apex court

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

section 145(3) of the act and once the said provision for rejection of account was not invoked then the addition made is unwarranted because for rejection of account invoking of provision of section 145(3) is a mandatory requirement. In this regard there are various decisions in support of the assessee including the decision of apex court