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

25,00,000/-. Therefore, he proposed to apply the provisions of the first proviso to section 2(15) and accordingly, asked the assessee to explain as to why the claim of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be disallowed and additions/disallowances be made to be income of the assessee and why the assessee

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

25,00,000/-. Therefore, he proposed to apply the provisions of the first proviso to section 2(15) and accordingly, asked the assessee to explain as to why the claim of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be disallowed and additions/disallowances be made to be income of the assessee and why the assessee

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

25,00,000/-. Therefore, he proposed to apply the provisions of the first proviso to section 2(15) and accordingly, asked the assessee to explain as to why the claim of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be disallowed and additions/disallowances be made to be income of the assessee and why the assessee

SURENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CIR-2, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2002-03 Surendra Kumar Mishra, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 794A/1, Sohabatiyabagh, Income Tax, Circle-2, Allahabad Allahabad-211006, U.P. Pan:Aibpm4858R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Under Section 250 R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.10.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Dismissing The 'Additional Ground' Relating To Non-Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act, Raised Before The Appellate Authority During The Course Of First Round Of Litigation, Which Has Been Remanded Back By The Hon'Ble Itat In Terms Of Order Dated 09.11.2012, By Observing That The Return Filed By The Appellant In Terms Of Letter Dated 10.11.2008 As Not A Valid Return In Compliance To Notice Dated 11.02.2008 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act, As The Said Letter Was Filed By The Appellant After The Time Limit Of 30 Days Provided To Do So In Terms Of Notice Dated 11.02.208 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act. 2. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Observing That The Appellant Could Not Have Demand For Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The 1 Surendra Kumar Mishra

disallowance to the extent of 10% of the expenses claimed at 15,79,300/- is wholly erroneous as being inconsistent with the facts of the case and applicable thereto. 14. BECAUSE 'surplus' arising out of 'transfer' of 'Capital asset', without prejudice to the contention raised in grounds no. 8 to 13 above, should have been subjected to assessment as 'long

RAJESH KUMAR JAISWAL,,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY/ACIT(CENTRAL), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: the query raised by the assessing authority vide questionnaire issued under section 142 (1) dated 23.01.2021, in assessment proceedings for the AY 2018-19.

10. Because the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice.” 2. Subsequently the Assessee filed four additional grounds of appeal. It was submitted that the same had inadvertently been missed out but were relevant and went to the root of the matter therefore they may kindly be admitted. After due consideration of the additional

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

25-39 of the Paper Book filed by the assessee, where Marketing expenses ledger accounts in the books of the assessee is placed. It was submitted that the AO disallowed entire marketing expenses of Rs. 12,63,138/- , while ld.CIT(A) restricted disallowance of expenses to Rs. 3,98,526/- after considering requirements of Section 194C, that the payment/credit

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

25-39 of the Paper Book filed by the assessee, where Marketing expenses ledger accounts in the books of the assessee is placed. It was submitted that the AO disallowed entire marketing expenses of Rs. 12,63,138/- , while ld.CIT(A) restricted disallowance of expenses to Rs. 3,98,526/- after considering requirements of Section 194C, that the payment/credit

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

25-39 of the Paper Book filed by the assessee, where Marketing expenses ledger accounts in the books of the assessee is placed. It was submitted that the AO disallowed entire marketing expenses of Rs. 12,63,138/- , while ld.CIT(A) restricted disallowance of expenses to Rs. 3,98,526/- after considering requirements of Section 194C, that the payment/credit

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

25-39 of the Paper Book filed by the assessee, where Marketing expenses ledger accounts in the books of the assessee is placed. It was submitted that the AO disallowed entire marketing expenses of Rs. 12,63,138/- , while ld.CIT(A) restricted disallowance of expenses to Rs. 3,98,526/- after considering requirements of Section 194C, that the payment/credit

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

25 which conducted search under section 132 of the I.T. Act; also prepared appraisal report after full consideration of materials found/seized in the course of search under section 132 of the Act. They contended that the appraisal report thus prepared by the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department is made available to the Assessing Officer as well

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

25 which conducted search under section 132 of the I.T. Act; also prepared appraisal report after full consideration of materials found/seized in the course of search under section 132 of the Act. They contended that the appraisal report thus prepared by the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department is made available to the Assessing Officer as well

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

25 which conducted search under section 132 of the I.T. Act; also prepared appraisal report after full consideration of materials found/seized in the course of search under section 132 of the Act. They contended that the appraisal report thus prepared by the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department is made available to the Assessing Officer as well

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

25 which conducted search under section 132 of the I.T. Act; also prepared appraisal report after full consideration of materials found/seized in the course of search under section 132 of the Act. They contended that the appraisal report thus prepared by the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department is made available to the Assessing Officer as well

ANIL KUMAR GUPTA,PANCHKULA(HARYANA) vs. DCIT, CIR- 1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.18/Alld/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बनधम/ Anil Kumar Gupta Dcit, Circle-1 House No.452P, Sector-25, Income Tax Office, 38, Vs. Panchkula-134109. M. G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh- 211001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aatpg1541K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Asit Hajela Revenue By: Shri A. K. Singh (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 21.12.2022 For Ay. 2013-14. 2. Ground No. 1 To 3 Are Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Disallowance Of Unpaid Service Tax Liability Of Rs.10,92,548/- U/S 43B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 3. The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Running A Concern Of Providing Security Guard & Manpower. The Assessee Has Been Consistently Following Mercantile System Of Accounting For Earlier As Well As Subsequent Years. & Assessee From Inception Is Registered Under The Service Tax & Regularly Depositing Service Tax In The Relevant Government Account. In The Year Under Consideration, The Ao Noted From Perusal Of The Balance-Sheet That Rs.10,92,548/- Pertaining

section 43B of the Act to disallow Rs.10,92,548/- because neither the assessee debited the amount (Rs.10.92 Lakhs) in the profit and loss account as an expenditure nor did he claim any deduction in respect of this amount; and considering that assessee has been following mercantile system of accounting the judicial precedent cited

GAJENDRA KUMAR,MAHOBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (2)(4 ), BANDA

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

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Gajendra Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 526, Rathaur Colony, Jaitpur, Ward-2(2)(4), Banda Belatal, Mahoba, U.P. Pan:Bitpk6827P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 3.01.2025, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ito, Ward-2(2)(4), Banda Dated 21.12.2019 Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Disallowing Appeal & Confirming The Addition Made By A.O. Of Rs. 25, 90,414/- As Cash Deposits Into Bank Account Under Section 69A Of It Act, 1961 Because All Notices Were Issued U/S 250 Of The Act On Itba Portal & No Physical Notice Was Issued To Appellant On Address Mentioned In Filed Itr & Filed Appeal & Has Disallowed Appeal Without Considering This Fact That Appellant Lives At Village Jaitpur Post Belataal, District Mahoba (U.P.) & Is Unknown About Information Technology. 2. That The Learned Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Disallowing Appeal & Confirming The Addition Made By A.O. Of Rs. 25, 90,414/- As Cash Deposits Into Bank Account Under Section 69A Of It Act, 1961 Without Considering This Fact That Appeal Was Filed By Advocate Dinesh Gupta Who Was Expired & Email Id In Profile Of Appellant Was Update By Him. Appellant Was Unknown About Login Id & Password Of Portal & Email Id Which Was Maintained By Late Advocate Dinesh Gupta.

disallowing and making addition of Rs. 25, 90,414/- without considering this fact that case of appellant was selected only make enquiry about cash deposit of Rs. 11,20,000/- into bank accounts during demonetization period and only notice U/s 142(1) was issued to appellant. Further, the A.O. has completed assessment without issuing notice

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 153A(1)(b), no addition or disallowances should have been made and the order should either have been cancelled or the additions should have been deleted since, there was no incriminating material or undisclosed income found during the search. With regard to the allegation of unexplained sales of Rs.16,68,561/-, it was submitted that the position had already

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 153A(1)(b), no addition or disallowances should have been made and the order should either have been cancelled or the additions should have been deleted since, there was no incriminating material or undisclosed income found during the search. With regard to the allegation of unexplained sales of Rs.16,68,561/-, it was submitted that the position had already

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 153A(1)(b), no addition or disallowances should have been made and the order should either have been cancelled or the additions should have been deleted since, there was no incriminating material or undisclosed income found during the search. With regard to the allegation of unexplained sales of Rs.16,68,561/-, it was submitted that the position had already