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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

7 13.12.2011 Rs. 65,000/- Raj Shree Palace 8 30.01.2012 Rs. 50,000/- Total Rs. 10,15,000/- The assessee was confronted on this issue by the AO to explain aforesaid cash deposits, and the assessee submitted as under: Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mr. Neeraj Agrwal, Mirzapur, U.P. The AO considered the aforesaid reply of the assessee and observed that

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

94 year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These amendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007." 9.5 It is evident from the CBDT Circular that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory that the assessments of search cases should be made

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

94 year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These amendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007." 9.5 It is evident from the CBDT Circular that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory that the assessments of search cases should be made

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

94 year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These amendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007." 9.5 It is evident from the CBDT Circular that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory that the assessments of search cases should be made

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

94 year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These amendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007." 9.5 It is evident from the CBDT Circular that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory that the assessments of search cases should be made

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

Section 36(1)(va) read with Explanation 1 and Section 2(24)(x) of the 1961 Act and deduction is not allowable going by strict and literal interpretation of provisions of the statute. Thus, once the deduction is found to be not allowable otherwise under the 1961 Act being hit by infringement of Section

THE HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION,ALLAHABAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: N.A.

94-96. Reference is drawn to the provisions of Section 12AA which obligates/empowers ld. CIT(E) to make enquiries as to the genuineness of the activities and objects of the trust/institution seeking registration u/s 12A and the compliances of such requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the trust/institution as are material for achieving

AMRESH KUMAR SINGH,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO- 2(1), ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

68,250/-. The returns so filed by the assessee were in consonance with his earlier returns, filed by him under section 139(4), in which he had declared a similar amount of income from salary. However, in between, a revised return had been filed by the assessee on 24.05.2013( for AY 2012-13) declaring total income of Rs.6

AMRESH KUMAR SINGH,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO 2 (1), ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

68,250/-. The returns so filed by the assessee were in consonance with his earlier returns, filed by him under section 139(4), in which he had declared a similar amount of income from salary. However, in between, a revised return had been filed by the assessee on 24.05.2013( for AY 2012-13) declaring total income of Rs.6

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

68,561/- in the credit sales. However, the explanation of the assessee with regard to cash sales had been accepted. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee presented these arguments, and, comments were invited from the ld. AO. The ld. AO replied that the assessee had not been able to substantiate its claim, as to how an improper command

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

68,561/- in the credit sales. However, the explanation of the assessee with regard to cash sales had been accepted. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee presented these arguments, and, comments were invited from the ld. AO. The ld. AO replied that the assessee had not been able to substantiate its claim, as to how an improper command

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

68,561/- in the credit sales. However, the explanation of the assessee with regard to cash sales had been accepted. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee presented these arguments, and, comments were invited from the ld. AO. The ld. AO replied that the assessee had not been able to substantiate its claim, as to how an improper command

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

68 by ignoring the explanation regarding separate books of accounts Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/s. Kesarwani Marketing Private Limited, Allahabad U.P. v. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle, Allahabad for each unit of the company and their consolidation for audited Balance Sheet and reconciliation submitted by the assessee. The assessee submitted that the AO erred in making additions

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 by ignoring the explanation regarding separate books of accounts Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/s. Kesarwani Marketing Private Limited, Allahabad U.P. v. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle, Allahabad for each unit of the company and their consolidation for audited Balance Sheet and reconciliation submitted by the assessee. The assessee submitted that the AO erred in making additions

DCIT, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S MAHESH CHANDRA VISHNU CHANDRA SARRAF, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue ITA No

Bench: Sh. Ramit Kochar & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.199/Alld/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Vs. Acit-Circle-1, Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad. 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. (Respondent) [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-Circle-1, Vs. M/S Mahesh Chandra Allahabad. Vishnu Chandra Sarraf, 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.34/Alld/2016 (In I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Vs. Dcit-Circle-3, Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad. 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By None. Respondent By Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr

sections of the income tax act is unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4 I.T.A. No. 199/Alld/2016, & C.O. No. 34/Alld/2016 6- That in any view of the matter the appellant reserves his right to take any fresh ground of appeal before hearing of the appeal.” I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016 3. The revenue has taken

M/S MAHESH CHANDRA VISHNU CHANDRA SARRAF,ALLAHABAD vs. ACCT, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue ITA No

Bench: Sh. Ramit Kochar & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.199/Alld/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Vs. Acit-Circle-1, Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad. 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. (Respondent) [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-Circle-1, Vs. M/S Mahesh Chandra Allahabad. Vishnu Chandra Sarraf, 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.34/Alld/2016 (In I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Vs. Dcit-Circle-3, Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad. 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By None. Respondent By Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr

sections of the income tax act is unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4 I.T.A. No. 199/Alld/2016, & C.O. No. 34/Alld/2016 6- That in any view of the matter the appellant reserves his right to take any fresh ground of appeal before hearing of the appeal.” I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016 3. The revenue has taken

M/S MAA SHARDA WINES,AMBEDKAR NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, AMBEDKAR NAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2014-15

section 143(3), the authorities below were not correct in holding that the genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of loan creditor could not be proved. 6. BECAUSE the “CIT(A)” was not justified to sustain the adhoc disallowance of expenses to the extent of 5% as against 25% made by the Assessing Officer.” 2. Ground Nos. 1 to 5 regarding

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