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

142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued by the learned AO from time to time. The main question that was addressed by the Assessing Officer, was with regard to the claim of the assessee for grant of exemption under sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is registered under section

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

142(1). This return was non-est and therefore, the assessee cannot seek a notice under section 143(2) as a matter of right on a return which was non-est. The ld. Sr. DR further argued that if one were to consider the purpose and intent of the notice under section 143(2), then it was that nobody should

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. The statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by Revenue from time to time and it is claimed by Revenue that they were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings observed from the Assessee’s Annual Report 2012 vide note no. 21 , that

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. The statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by Revenue from time to time and it is claimed by Revenue that they were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings observed from the Assessee’s Annual Report 2012 vide note no. 21 , that

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3) , ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. The statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by Revenue from time to time and it is claimed by Revenue that they were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings observed from the Assessee’s Annual Report 2012 vide note no. 21 , that

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.

142(1), the provisions of section 69 and consequently section 115BBE would not apply. The Ld AR further argued that to apply the provisions of Section 69, the twin conditions that triggered the liability for assessment under section 69 had to be fulfilled i.e. that the investment was not recorded in the books of account and that the assessee

ZILA SAHKARI BANK LTD.,MIRZAPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, MIRZAPUR

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

142(1) were admittedly issued and served to the assessee by AO. During the course of assessment proceedings conducted by AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act for ay:2010-11, the assessee was asked by AO to explain about the aforesaid claim of deduction. The assessee submitted before the AO that the said

ZILA SAHKARI BANK LTD,,MIRZAPUR vs. JT. C.I.T.,, MIRZAPUR

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

142(1) were admittedly issued and served to the assessee by AO. During the course of assessment proceedings conducted by AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act for ay:2010-11, the assessee was asked by AO to explain about the aforesaid claim of deduction. The assessee submitted before the AO that the said

DHIRENDRA SINGH,MIRZAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(1), MIRZAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Dhirendra Singh V. Income Tax Officer Mangraha, Chunar Ward 3(1) Mirzapur Mirzapur Pan:Bipps5569C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Brij Bhushan Goenka, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 03 2025

142(1) of the Act dated 30.08.2017. In response to the notice, the assessee filed a copy of Audit Report, Balance Sheet, profit and loss account and copy of ITR. The Assessing Officer records that when asked to substantiate the issue involved, i.e., “increase in capital”, the ITA No.133/ALLD/2024 Page 3 of 11 A.R. of the assessee could offer

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), ALLAHABAD vs. MONAD INFRASOLUTION LIMITED, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose and the Cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, V. Monad Infrasolution Limited, Ward-2(2), Allahabad C-80 Gtb Nagar Kareli, Allahabad, 211016 U.P. Pan-Aajcm2155J (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 01/Alld/2021 In Assessment Year: 2015-16 Monad Infrasolution Limited, V. Income Tax Officer, C-80 Gtb Nagar Kareli, Ward-2(2), Allahabad Allahabad, 211016 U.P. Pan-Aajcm2155J (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed. He has relied upon the impugned order of the CIT(A). 12. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on records. The Assessing Officer has recorded the facts of issuing the notices under Section 143(2), 142

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act, and statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the AO to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked by AO to furnish Profit and Loss account .On perusal on the same, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed Rs. 55,610/- under

ARUP BANERJI,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , 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)

disallowed. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the dismissal of his appeal, the assessee has now come before us. Sh. Shiv Kumar Jaiswal, C.A. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. AR’) submitted that the issue of whether the assessee could set off derivative loss against normal business losses was covered

VANDANA BANSAL L/H OF LATE DR. ASHWANI KUMAR BANSAL, ,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

142(1) was served on the appellant was 19.12.2016. Therefore, the assessment orders dated 31.07.2017 are barred by limitation. 7. The authorities below differed on this issue by relying on the following proviso below section 153:- Provided further that where a proceeding before the Settlement Commission abates under section 245HA, the period of limitation available under this section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL CIRCLE), ALLAHABAD vs. JEEVAN JYOTI CHARITABLE TRUST, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

142(1) was served on the appellant was 19.12.2016. Therefore, the assessment orders dated 31.07.2017 are barred by limitation. 7. The authorities below differed on this issue by relying on the following proviso below section 153:- Provided further that where a proceeding before the Settlement Commission abates under section 245HA, the period of limitation available under this section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), ALLAHABAD vs. JEEVAN JYOTI CHARITABLE TRUST, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

142(1) was served on the appellant was 19.12.2016. Therefore, the assessment orders dated 31.07.2017 are barred by limitation. 7. The authorities below differed on this issue by relying on the following proviso below section 153:- Provided further that where a proceeding before the Settlement Commission abates under section 245HA, the period of limitation available under this section

MINTO COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

142(1) was served on the appellant was 19.12.2016. Therefore, the assessment orders dated 31.07.2017 are barred by limitation. 7. The authorities below differed on this issue by relying on the following proviso below section 153:- Provided further that where a proceeding before the Settlement Commission abates under section 245HA, the period of limitation available under this section

ARPIT HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

142(1) was served on the appellant was 19.12.2016. Therefore, the assessment orders dated 31.07.2017 are barred by limitation. 7. The authorities below differed on this issue by relying on the following proviso below section 153:- Provided further that where a proceeding before the Settlement Commission abates under section 245HA, the period of limitation available under this section

VANDANA BANSAL L/H OF LATE DR. ASHWANI KUMAR BANSAL, ,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

142(1) was served on the appellant was 19.12.2016. Therefore, the assessment orders dated 31.07.2017 are barred by limitation. 7. The authorities below differed on this issue by relying on the following proviso below section 153:- Provided further that where a proceeding before the Settlement Commission abates under section 245HA, the period of limitation available under this section