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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

4. That the documents, explanations filed by the Appellant, and the material available on record have not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and have been wrongly ignored. 5. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has .erred in law and on facts in charging the interest under Sections 234A, 234B, & 234C

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

4. That the documents, explanations filed by the Appellant, and the material available on record have not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and have been wrongly ignored. 5. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has .erred in law and on facts in charging the interest under Sections 234A, 234B, & 234C

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

4. That the documents, explanations filed by the Appellant, and the material available on record have not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and have been wrongly ignored. 5. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has .erred in law and on facts in charging the interest under Sections 234A, 234B, & 234C

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

section 20(2) of the 1973 Act, mandate that the funds of the authority are to be applied towards meeting the expenses of the authority in the administration of that Act and for no other purpose. iv. The contention of the Revenue that the assessee was a commercial enterprise which had undertaken various civil construction work on behalf

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

section 20(2) of the 1973 Act, mandate that the funds of the authority are to be applied towards meeting the expenses of the authority in the administration of that Act and for no other purpose. iv. The contention of the Revenue that the assessee was a commercial enterprise which had undertaken various civil construction work on behalf

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

section 20(2) of the 1973 Act, mandate that the funds of the authority are to be applied towards meeting the expenses of the authority in the administration of that Act and for no other purpose. iv. The contention of the Revenue that the assessee was a commercial enterprise which had undertaken various civil construction work on behalf

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

253 ITR 93 and CIT v. Bharat Bamboo & Timber Suppliers [1996] 219 ITR 212 the Division Bench dismissed the appeal of the revenue. It transpires that the aforesaid matter was taken up in appeal along with other matters including Vinay Cement Ltd.'s case (supra). The order in Vinay Cement Ltd.'s case (supra) was passed by the Supreme Court

M/S. SUBHASH STONE INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NAINITAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

253(6)(c) of the 1961 Act , and rather deposited only Rs. 1500/- with government treasury, vide challan no. 35117(BSR Code 6360218) dated 06.07.2017 . The defect was pointed out to the ld. Counsel for the assessee on earlier occassions , and the assessee duly deposited short appeal fee of Rs. 8500/- with government treasury on 10.11.2021 vide challan

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

253 ITR 93 and CIT v. Bharat Bamboo & Timber Suppliers [1996] 219 ITR 212 the Division Bench dismissed the appeal of the revenue. It transpires that the aforesaid matter was taken up in appeal along with other matters including Vinay Cement Ltd.'s case (supra). The order in Vinay Cement Ltd.'s case (supra) was passed by the Supreme Court

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

253 ITR 93 and CIT v. Bharat Bamboo & Timber Suppliers [1996] 219 ITR 212 the Division Bench dismissed the appeal of the revenue. It transpires that the aforesaid matter was taken up in appeal along with other matters including Vinay Cement Ltd.'s case (supra). The order in Vinay Cement Ltd.'s case (supra) was passed by the Supreme Court

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

253 ITR 93 and CIT v. Bharat Bamboo & Timber Suppliers [1996] 219 ITR 212 the Division Bench dismissed the appeal of the revenue. It transpires that the aforesaid matter was taken up in appeal along with other matters including Vinay Cement Ltd.'s case (supra). The order in Vinay Cement Ltd.'s case (supra) was passed by the Supreme Court

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

253 ITR 93 and CIT v. Bharat Bamboo & Timber Suppliers [1996] 219 ITR 212 the Division Bench dismissed the appeal of the revenue. It transpires that the aforesaid matter was taken up in appeal along with other matters including Vinay Cement Ltd.'s case (supra). The order in Vinay Cement Ltd.'s case (supra) was passed by the Supreme Court

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

4. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is perfectly justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,93,88,147/- made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That

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

4. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is perfectly justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,93,88,147/- made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That

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

4. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is perfectly justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,93,88,147/- made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That

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

4. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is perfectly justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,93,88,147/- made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That

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

4. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is perfectly justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,93,88,147/- made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That

M/S JAI MAA SHARDA SERVICE STATION,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, 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

4. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is perfectly justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,93,88,147/- made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That