GHAUS MEMORIAL SAHKARI AWAS SAMITI LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT RANGE-2, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

64,62,054/- towards fresh deposits raised by the assessee during the Financial Year 2000-01(ay; 2001-02) which addition stood confirmed by ld. CIT(A) in third round of litigation by invoking provisions of Section 68

M/S B.M.GUPTA & SONS,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. B. M. Gupta & Sons (Huf) V. Dcit Range-1 64 Balrampur House, Allahabad- Income Tax Office, 38 M. 211002. G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh- 211001. Tan/Pan: Aachb2800B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Asit Hajela, Ca Respondent By: Shri A.K. Singh, Cit ( Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2021 O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao:

64 Balrampur House, Allahabad -211002 against the Order dated 26.09.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Allahabad for the Assessment Year 2005-06. 01. BECAUSE the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming Rs. 77,167/- being the disallowance of interest paid on deposits and Rs. 95,000/- being

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

68 of the Act, was deserved to be upheld. He, therefore, confirmed the addition. The ld. CIT(A), however, accepted the explanation of the assessee for the fresh addition to capital account and did not confirm the addition in this regard. On the issue of service of notice under section

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 of the Act of Rs.72,09,500/- made by the Assessing Officer for credit balances / unsecured loan from various parties. I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 4 6. 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

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 of the Act of Rs.72,09,500/- made by the Assessing Officer for credit balances / unsecured loan from various parties. I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 4 6. 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

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 of the Act of Rs.72,09,500/- made by the Assessing Officer for credit balances / unsecured loan from various parties. I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 4 6. 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

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 of the Act of Rs.72,09,500/- made by the Assessing Officer for credit balances / unsecured loan from various parties. I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 4 6. 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

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING (P) LTD,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT. C.IT,(OSD), ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

68 of the Income Tax Act is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case as the appellant discharged the burden as required and action of the assessing officer and his observations in the course as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are not correct in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That

M/S KESARWANI <ARKETING (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

68 of the Income Tax Act is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case as the appellant discharged the burden as required and action of the assessing officer and his observations in the course as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are not correct in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That

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

68 of the Income Tax Act is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case as the appellant discharged the burden as required and action of the assessing officer and his observations in the course as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are not correct in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That

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

68 of the Income Tax Act is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case as the appellant discharged the burden as required and action of the assessing officer and his observations in the course as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are not correct in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That

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

section 132(1) of the 1961 Act against the assessee on 27.08.2009 , we are proceeding to adjudicate ground of appeal nos. 5 and 6 raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with tribunal. Vide ground of appeal no. 5, the assessee is 23 ITA NO. 152/A/2013, 179/A/2013, 632/A/2014, 633/A/2014 & C.O. 16/A/2013 BALAJI AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED contending that

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

section 132(1) of the 1961 Act against the assessee on 27.08.2009 , we are proceeding to adjudicate ground of appeal nos. 5 and 6 raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with tribunal. Vide ground of appeal no. 5, the assessee is 23 ITA NO. 152/A/2013, 179/A/2013, 632/A/2014, 633/A/2014 & C.O. 16/A/2013 BALAJI AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED contending that

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

section 132(1) of the 1961 Act against the assessee on 27.08.2009 , we are proceeding to adjudicate ground of appeal nos. 5 and 6 raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with tribunal. Vide ground of appeal no. 5, the assessee is 23 ITA NO. 152/A/2013, 179/A/2013, 632/A/2014, 633/A/2014 & C.O. 16/A/2013 BALAJI AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED contending that

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

section 132(1) of the 1961 Act against the assessee on 27.08.2009 , we are proceeding to adjudicate ground of appeal nos. 5 and 6 raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with tribunal. Vide ground of appeal no. 5, the assessee is 23 ITA NO. 152/A/2013, 179/A/2013, 632/A/2014, 633/A/2014 & C.O. 16/A/2013 BALAJI AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED contending that

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

64,337.00 was maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by considering the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the act in wrong manner and also by ignoring the nature of payment and circumstances hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 8. That in any view of the matter

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

64,337.00 was maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by considering the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the act in wrong manner and also by ignoring the nature of payment and circumstances hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 8. That in any view of the matter

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

68,561/- on this account. Ground no. 2 is accordingly allowed. 12. Ground no. 3 relates to the sustenance of addition of Rs.10,38,134/- on account of certain expenses recorded in KZ-1, while ground no. 4 relates to sustenance of addition of Rs.5,60,082/- for alleged difference on commission of sales, on account of entries recorded