IRFAN AHMAD,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO RANGE 1(2),, ALLAHABAD

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

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. 7. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That in any view of the matter assessment made u/s 143 (3)/147 by order dated 25.03.2015 on income of Rs.19,16,470/- is bad both on the facts and in law. 2. That in any view of the matter proceeding

RAM KUMAR MAURYA,BHADOHI vs. ITO, WARD - 1(5), BHADOHI, BHADOHI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Ram Kumar Maurya V. The Income Tax Officer Parkritkar Khamaria Ward 1(5) Bhadohi (U.P) Bhadohi Tan/Pan:Babpm1314H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.07.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. On The Basis Of The Information In Possession Of The Income Tax Department That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.12,84,330/- In His Saving Bank Account No.28260100004067 Maintained With Bank Of Baroda, Khamaria Branch, Bhadohi, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. In Response To The Statutory Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer

133(6) of the Act. Since there was no explanation from the side of the assessee with regard to the cash deposits of Rs.12,84,330/- as well as credit entry of Rs.1,78,444/-, totaling to Rs.14,62,774/- in the aforementioned bank account during the year under consideration, the AO treated the same as unexplained income

MOHAMMAD GHUFRAN,KAUSHAMBI vs. ITO - 2(5), KAUSHAMBI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Mohammad Ghufran V. The Income Tax Officer 2(5) Hazratganj Kaushambi Karari Manjhanpur Kaushambi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bpfpg0938A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Mohit Singh Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R

133(6) of the Act from Shri Prem Chandra S/o Sri Mathura Prasad during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of Shri Harish Chandra for assessment year 2017-18, who had stated vide his reply dated 11.10.2019 that "the amount was received by him in a single transaction." The AO observed that from the reply furnished by Shri

SANKAR LAL JAISWAL,,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO- 1(5), 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)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. The facts of the case are that the Department received an information that during the demonetization period, the assessee had deposited a cash amounting to Rs.14,02,000/- in the assessee’s bank account at Bank of Baroda, Koraon, Allahabad, but no ITR had been filed by the assessee

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

condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of section 43B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in section 43B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special leave petition

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

133 taxman.com 79 (Jabalpur-Trib.) B.R.S Precision Manufacturing (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 135 taxman.com 248 (Banglore-Trib.) At the outset, it is pertinent to submit that no details/evidences have been furnished by the Ld. AR alongwith his written submission (04 pages- received through email yesterday) to show the exact dates on which the sum(s) in question were actually