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

disallowed and additions/disallowances be made to be income of the assessee and why the assessee may not be assessed accordingly. In response it was submitted that its activities of the assessee authority were of a charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15) was not applicable in its case. 7.2 The AO was not satisfied with the reply

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

disallowed 10% of the expenses paid for compensation and 10% of amount paid towards the development of property. Thus, he made an addition of Rs.1,57,000/- on this count. He also did not accept the plea that Rs.4,50,000/- had been transferred to Shri. Rajat Kamal Mitra and added this amount back in the hands of the assessee

DINESH KUMAR SINGH,MIRZAPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallowances which proves the fact that neither assessment proceeding is as per the procedure laid down by the department nor is investigation made as expected in scrutiny assessment, hence it is very much visible that assessment has been completed without application of mind, without proper inquiry and without the consequential investigation in the business transactions. Thus, obviously the assessment order

POOJA GROVER,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CIR-2,, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance @30@ on the assets whereas the claim of depreciation has been made @10% on furniture and 15% on the air conditioner, bills of which are either in the name of Umang Grover or Umang Sarees. It was submitted that the depreciation of Rs.5,29,827/- be allowed. 6. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the orders

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

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

29 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 30 (B.2.0) The learned Departmental Representatives also placed reliance on common written submissions filed earlier relevant portion of which is being reproduced below: I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 31 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

29 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 30 (B.2.0) The learned Departmental Representatives also placed reliance on common written submissions filed earlier relevant portion of which is being reproduced below: I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 31 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

29 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 30 (B.2.0) The learned Departmental Representatives also placed reliance on common written submissions filed earlier relevant portion of which is being reproduced below: I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 31 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

29 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 30 (B.2.0) The learned Departmental Representatives also placed reliance on common written submissions filed earlier relevant portion of which is being reproduced below: I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 31 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

29. Ground No. 3 pertains to the disallowance of interest of Rs. 27,453/-. The ground has not been pressed by the Ld. AR, and is therefore dismissed as withdrawn. 30. Ground number 4 is general and does not require adjudication . 31. In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed ITA No. 425/Alld/2014 A/w CO No. 20/Alld/2014

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

29. Ground No. 3 pertains to the disallowance of interest of Rs. 27,453/-. The ground has not been pressed by the Ld. AR, and is therefore dismissed as withdrawn. 30. Ground number 4 is general and does not require adjudication . 31. In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed ITA No. 425/Alld/2014 A/w CO No. 20/Alld/2014

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

29. Ground No. 3 pertains to the disallowance of interest of Rs. 27,453/-. The ground has not been pressed by the Ld. AR, and is therefore dismissed as withdrawn. 30. Ground number 4 is general and does not require adjudication . 31. In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed ITA No. 425/Alld/2014 A/w CO No. 20/Alld/2014

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

10,29,460/-. Later ,it was noticed by Department that the assessee’s income to the tune of Rs. 19,95,317/- chargeable to income-tax had escaped assessment. Accordingly, after recording of the reasons for reopening of the concluded assessment, and getting it approved by Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad, the case of the assessee was reopened

SAVLA AGENCIES,ALLAHABAD vs. JCIT, RANGE-I, , ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2011-12 Savla Agencies, V. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, 26, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Range-I, Allahabad Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aawfs0816J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Tanmay Sadh, Adv Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.01.2023 O R D E R

29,841/+1,20,354/- + 18,352/-) Rs 3,27,465/- more than that was admissible. Please explain as to why Rs 327,465/-should not be disallowed and added towards your income for the year under consideration.” 3. Thus, the AO propose to disallow the interest payment of Rs. 3,27,465/- on account of excess payment by calculating

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 148 of the Act, filed ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 29 of 79 her return of income declaring a total income of Rs.83,150/-. In this year also, the AO disallowed 5% of the payments made by the assessee in cash, i.e., 5% of Rs.10,50,000/-, which came to Rs.52

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 148 of the Act, filed ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 29 of 79 her return of income declaring a total income of Rs.83,150/-. In this year also, the AO disallowed 5% of the payments made by the assessee in cash, i.e., 5% of Rs.10,50,000/-, which came to Rs.52

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 148 of the Act, filed ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 29 of 79 her return of income declaring a total income of Rs.83,150/-. In this year also, the AO disallowed 5% of the payments made by the assessee in cash, i.e., 5% of Rs.10,50,000/-, which came to Rs.52

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 148 of the Act, filed ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 29 of 79 her return of income declaring a total income of Rs.83,150/-. In this year also, the AO disallowed 5% of the payments made by the assessee in cash, i.e., 5% of Rs.10,50,000/-, which came to Rs.52