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

143(2) / 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

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

143(2) / 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

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

143(2) / 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

SBW UDYOG LIMITED,,PRAYAGRAJ vs. DCIT, CIR-1,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh.Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2021-22 Sbw Udyog Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 44, Thornhill Road, Prayagraj Tax, Circle-1, Prayagraj Pan:Aadcs2883B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. N.C. Agrawal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .03.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 31.01.2024, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cpc Bengaluru, Under Section, 143(1) Dated 17.10.2022. Subsequently, The Said Appeal Was Migrated To The Nfac & Later On, The Appeal Proceedings Were Transferred To The Additional / Jcit(A), Aurangabad, Who Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because, Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India Has Observed In The Notice Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Reads As Under:- "The Income Tax Department Recognizes & Is Sensitive To The Hardships Being Faced By Taxpayers In Coping With The Challenges Posed By Covid-19 Pandemic." Consequently, Appeal Is Liable To Be Allowed.

disallowance made is liable to be deleted. 5. Because, returned income has been accepted in the order passed Under Section 143 (3) of the Act dated 21/12/2022 without any addition, whatsoever hence the addition made for a sum of Rs. 43,04,355/-in the order passed Under Section 143 (1) of the Act is liable to be deleted

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

section 143(2) of the Act was not a curable defect. Without prejudice to this legal ground, the Ld. A.R. argued that the ld. CIT(A) had erred in adding back the opening capital, without noticing that there was no scope for the assessee to show the opening capital in any previous return, as the annual income previous to this

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.

2 Lacs and M/s Narayan Marketing of Rs.1,96,606/-. 5 A.Y.2018-19 Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal Accordingly, the ld. AO treated the credits from these two parties as unexplained and brought them to tax. 5. Aggrieved with these additions, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). With regard to the disallowance of deduction under section 24(a) from

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer is illegal & bad in law as the same is passed without valid statutory approval in terms of Section 153D of the Act as the same was granted mechanically and without any application of mind. 3. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer is illegal & bad in law as the same is passed without valid statutory approval in terms of Section 153D of the Act as the same was granted mechanically and without any application of mind. 3. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer is illegal & bad in law as the same is passed without valid statutory approval in terms of Section 153D of the Act as the same was granted mechanically and without any application of mind. 3. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer is illegal & bad in law as the same is passed without valid statutory approval in terms of Section 153D of the Act as the same was granted mechanically and without any application of mind. 3. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case

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)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 30.12.2017. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. BECAUSE the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining disallowance of set-off of loss from 'Derivative Trading ' of Rs. 1,57,21,804/- against the normal income from business and professional

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed 5% of the payments made by the assessee in cash, i.e., 5% of Rs.8.00 lakhs, which came to Rs.40,000/- and the same was also added to the income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.47,43,380/-. 3.2 Aggrieved

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed 5% of the payments made by the assessee in cash, i.e., 5% of Rs.8.00 lakhs, which came to Rs.40,000/- and the same was also added to the income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.47,43,380/-. 3.2 Aggrieved

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed 5% of the payments made by the assessee in cash, i.e., 5% of Rs.8.00 lakhs, which came to Rs.40,000/- and the same was also added to the income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.47,43,380/-. 3.2 Aggrieved

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed 5% of the payments made by the assessee in cash, i.e., 5% of Rs.8.00 lakhs, which came to Rs.40,000/- and the same was also added to the income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.47,43,380/-. 3.2 Aggrieved

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed 5% of the payments made by the assessee in cash, i.e., 5% of Rs.8.00 lakhs, which came to Rs.40,000/- and the same was also added to the income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.47,43,380/-. 3.2 Aggrieved

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed 5% of the payments made by the assessee in cash, i.e., 5% of Rs.8.00 lakhs, which came to Rs.40,000/- and the same was also added to the income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.47,43,380/-. 3.2 Aggrieved

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed 5% of the payments made by the assessee in cash, i.e., 5% of Rs.8.00 lakhs, which came to Rs.40,000/- and the same was also added to the income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.47,43,380/-. 3.2 Aggrieved

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed 5% of the payments made by the assessee in cash, i.e., 5% of Rs.8.00 lakhs, which came to Rs.40,000/- and the same was also added to the income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.47,43,380/-. 3.2 Aggrieved