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

section 20(2) of the 1973 Act, mandate that the funds of the authority are to be applied towards meeting the expenses of the authority in the administration of that Act and for no other purpose. iv. The contention of the Revenue that the assessee was a commercial enterprise which had undertaken various civil construction work on behalf of State

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 in the hands of the assessee and also that the capital gains had rightly been assessed in his hands. He submitted that since the assessee had got the property converted to free hold on 15.06.2001 and sold the property between July to October 2001, therefore, it was clearly a case of short-term capital gain, unless, he could show

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.

disallow the deductions under section 24(a). However, since the assessee is entitled to deduction on business assets, we accept the alternative argument of the ld. AR that the assessee must be allowed the depreciation on WDV on these buildings annually, in accordance with explanation 5 of section 32 of the Act. Ground No.7 is decided accordingly. 12. With regard

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

34 issue whether the assessments were passed by the Assessing Officer after obtaining valid approval of JCIT. They submitted that the facts and circumstances for all the other appeals on this issue were in para materia and the decision in the case of Minto Developers Pvt. Ltd. would apply mutatis mutandis to remaining cases also. Accordingly, we first take

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

34 issue whether the assessments were passed by the Assessing Officer after obtaining valid approval of JCIT. They submitted that the facts and circumstances for all the other appeals on this issue were in para materia and the decision in the case of Minto Developers Pvt. Ltd. would apply mutatis mutandis to remaining cases also. Accordingly, we first take

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

34 issue whether the assessments were passed by the Assessing Officer after obtaining valid approval of JCIT. They submitted that the facts and circumstances for all the other appeals on this issue were in para materia and the decision in the case of Minto Developers Pvt. Ltd. would apply mutatis mutandis to remaining cases also. Accordingly, we first take

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

34 issue whether the assessments were passed by the Assessing Officer after obtaining valid approval of JCIT. They submitted that the facts and circumstances for all the other appeals on this issue were in para materia and the decision in the case of Minto Developers Pvt. Ltd. would apply mutatis mutandis to remaining cases also. Accordingly, we first take

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

10 relates to the lack of opportunity afforded to the assessee by the lower authorities. As nothing specific has been cited before us in this regard, this ground is dismissed. 23. Ground No. 11 relates to the charging of interest by the ld. Assessing Officer. We observe that the charging of interest is automatically triggered upon the variation

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

10 relates to the lack of opportunity afforded to the assessee by the lower authorities. As nothing specific has been cited before us in this regard, this ground is dismissed. 23. Ground No. 11 relates to the charging of interest by the ld. Assessing Officer. We observe that the charging of interest is automatically triggered upon the variation

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

10 relates to the lack of opportunity afforded to the assessee by the lower authorities. As nothing specific has been cited before us in this regard, this ground is dismissed. 23. Ground No. 11 relates to the charging of interest by the ld. Assessing Officer. We observe that the charging of interest is automatically triggered upon the variation

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

34,92,002/- Cr c) Tarun Savla Rs. 15,54,351/- Cr d) Devaang Savla Rs. 2,87,073/- Cr Interest @ 12% on the above credit balances comes to Rs 2,07,404/-, Rs 4,19,040/ Rs 1,86,522/- & Rs 33,971/- respectively whereas you have credited above partners capital

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

10. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in upholding the addition of Rs.52,500/- on adhoc basis being 5% of the ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 33 of 79 overall cash withdrawal during the year, as the payments made by the appellant during the year has not been disputed

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

10. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in upholding the addition of Rs.52,500/- on adhoc basis being 5% of the ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 33 of 79 overall cash withdrawal during the year, as the payments made by the appellant during the year has not been disputed

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

10. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in upholding the addition of Rs.52,500/- on adhoc basis being 5% of the ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 33 of 79 overall cash withdrawal during the year, as the payments made by the appellant during the year has not been disputed

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

10. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in upholding the addition of Rs.52,500/- on adhoc basis being 5% of the ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 33 of 79 overall cash withdrawal during the year, as the payments made by the appellant during the year has not been disputed

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

10. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in upholding the addition of Rs.52,500/- on adhoc basis being 5% of the ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 33 of 79 overall cash withdrawal during the year, as the payments made by the appellant during the year has not been disputed

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

10. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in upholding the addition of Rs.52,500/- on adhoc basis being 5% of the ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 33 of 79 overall cash withdrawal during the year, as the payments made by the appellant during the year has not been disputed

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

10. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in upholding the addition of Rs.52,500/- on adhoc basis being 5% of the ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 33 of 79 overall cash withdrawal during the year, as the payments made by the appellant during the year has not been disputed