DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both appeals i

reopen the cases of the respective assessee. In the case of Shri Ram Builders vs. ACIT (supra) the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that when the ld. AO tried to justify the assessment order and requested the audit party to drop the objections, there was no independent application of mind by the ld. AO for initiation of re-assessment

M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both appeals i

reopen the cases of the respective assessee. In the case of Shri Ram Builders vs. ACIT (supra) the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that when the ld. AO tried to justify the assessment order and requested the audit party to drop the objections, there was no independent application of mind by the ld. AO for initiation of re-assessment

DEVENDRA SINGH,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, RANGE-1, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Devendra Singh, The Deputy Commissioner Of 166A, Puravaldi Kydganj, V. Income Tax, Range-1, Allahabad, Allahabad-211003,U.P. U.P. Pan:Aexps6329H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.09.2023 O R D E R

disallowing the exemption u/s 54F of the act without bringing any positive material on record in the garb of section 147 of the act by the assessing officer is highly unjustified. 6. That in any view of the matter investment in construction of property duly disclosed in books of account as well in financial statement in the original return itself

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

disallowance under various heads to the tune of Rs. 6,26,650/- and completed the assessment u/s 143(3), vide order dated 21-12- 2010. The Assessing Officer while framing the assessment u/s 153A of the Act has added an amount of Rs. 6,26,650/- which was earlier added U/s 143(3) of the Act. It is relevant

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. M/S. J.P.YADAV , SONEBHADRA

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

reopening of the concluded assessment by the AO by invoking provisions of Section 147/148 of the 1961 Act, to be valid. 5.311 So far as additions on the merits , the assessee submitted before ld. CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceedings, that there is no suppression of interest income with regard to the interest income disclosed in the Profit

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

reopening of the concluded assessment by Revenue by invoking provisions of Section 147/148 of the 1961 Act, and the issues involved in this appeal filed by Revenue are argued before the Division Bench on merits of the issue’s by both the rival parties . 3.2 During the course of re-assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee namely

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

reopening of the concluded assessment by Revenue by invoking provisions of Section 147/148 of the 1961 Act, and the issues involved in this appeal filed by Revenue are argued before the Division Bench on merits of the issue’s by both the rival parties . 3.2 During the course of re-assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee namely

RAJENDRA TRIPATHI,MAHARAJGANJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), MAHARAJGANJ

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Rajendra Tripathi, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(4), Pharenda Road, Maharajganj Gorakhpur-273155, U.P. Pan:Aadfi7669A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 30.05.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Restricting The Relief To Rs.8,16,905/- (Being 30% Of The Overall Disallowance) Only As Against The Overall Disallowance Aggregating To Rs.27,23,015/- Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Various Heads Of Expenses Being "Advertisement & Publicity, Staff Welfare, Sales Promotion Expenses, Salary To Staff", While Passing The Assessment Order Dated 19.12.2019, As The Said Addition Itself Is Based On A Very Fallacious Ground That; "It Is Customary In Assessment Orders To Disallow Percentage Of Certain Expenses For Different Reasons. However In This Case I Rely On The Daily Observation Of The Staff Of The Income Tax Office, Maharajganj Who Are Sure That The Assessee Works Through Daily Wagers For Loading & Unloading Of Goods & Does Not Employ Any Staff. Besides The Above The Other Three Expenses Have Never Been Observed To Have Been Incurred."

disallowance of Rs.32,16,500/-, the ld. AO’s stance seems to be contradictory to his own action in accepting deposits to the extent of Rs.16,25,500/- made on 10.11.2016. The mere fact that something was deposited on a day after the banks reopened, cannot be a ground to hold that they were not out of sales proceeds

SANJAY MAJUMDAR,ALLAHABAD vs. PR. CIT, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Sanjay Majumdar, V. The Principal Commissioner Type Ii – 112, Devprayagam Of Income Tax, Sangam Vatika – Jhalwa, Aayakar Bhawan, Allahabad 211012 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad 211001 Pan: Adopm 2688P (Appellant) (Respondent)

reopening of the concluded assessment by Revenue within the provisions of Section 147/148 of the 1961 Act. The income of the assessee as re-assessed by ld. Assessing Officer( hereinafter called “ the AO”) , to the tune of Rs. 36,84,950/-, vide reassessment order dated 24.06.2016 , which reassessment order was later 2 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sanjay Majumdar rectified under

SHRI RAMA PATI GUPTA,,PRATAPGARH vs. ITO,, PRATAPGARH

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10

Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sri Ramapati Gupta Revenue has come into possession of information from AIR that the assessee is having a saving bank account with SBI in which cash deposit of Rs. 20,28,000/- was deposited in cash during the year under consideration , which led to invocation of provisions of Section 147/148 of the 1961 Act. The case

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

assessment orders of all these 5 years are not legally tenable, as the reasons for re- opening of assessments for escapement of income are having different from the reasons given in the assessment orders for disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

assessment orders of all these 5 years are not legally tenable, as the reasons for re- opening of assessments for escapement of income are having different from the reasons given in the assessment orders for disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

assessment orders of all these 5 years are not legally tenable, as the reasons for re- opening of assessments for escapement of income are having different from the reasons given in the assessment orders for disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

assessment orders of all these 5 years are not legally tenable, as the reasons for re- opening of assessments for escapement of income are having different from the reasons given in the assessment orders for disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

assessment orders of all these 5 years are not legally tenable, as the reasons for re- opening of assessments for escapement of income are having different from the reasons given in the assessment orders for disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

assessment orders of all these 5 years are not legally tenable, as the reasons for re- opening of assessments for escapement of income are having different from the reasons given in the assessment orders for disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

assessment orders of all these 5 years are not legally tenable, as the reasons for re- opening of assessments for escapement of income are having different from the reasons given in the assessment orders for disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

assessment orders of all these 5 years are not legally tenable, as the reasons for re- opening of assessments for escapement of income are having different from the reasons given in the assessment orders for disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

assessment orders of all these 5 years are not legally tenable, as the reasons for re- opening of assessments for escapement of income are having different from the reasons given in the assessment orders for disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that