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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 153A on the basis of material other than incriminating material discovered during the search. In view of our reasoning adopted in ITA No.392/Alld/2014 for the AY 2009-10, this ground of appeal is allowed. 28. Ground No. 2 pertains to disallowance made on account of difference in figures as recorded in KZ 1 and the regular accounts presented along

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 153A on the basis of material other than incriminating material discovered during the search. In view of our reasoning adopted in ITA No.392/Alld/2014 for the AY 2009-10, this ground of appeal is allowed. 28. Ground No. 2 pertains to disallowance made on account of difference in figures as recorded in KZ 1 and the regular accounts presented along

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

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, 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

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

M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Deora Electric Works V. The Jcit 58-A, Sardar Patel Marg Range – I Allahabad Allahabad Pan:Aadfd7479B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 03 2025 O R D E R

disallowable under section 40A(3) of the Act, it was submitted that these were made after office hours at various sites. Regarding the difference in amount of bank guarantee and commission as reported by the Bank, the assessee submitted that the guarantees were taken from Bank of Baroda, Main Branch, Allahabad and the fees were collected by them from

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

29 had considered the issue of section 292BB and held that it would have no effect on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC). The Hon’ble Bench held that the ld. CIT(A’s) could therefore not be sustained. Examining the finding

SANJAY KUMAR KESARWANI,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO -1(5), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee with tribunal in ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act , which culminated into assessment order dated 11.12.2018 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act , wherein additions to the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 14,29,221/- were made by the AO to the returned income of the assessee. The assessee filed first appeal before learned

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

RAMJI VAISH,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, (CC), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance ignoring that conditions of exception from application of section 40A(3) r'w Rule 6DDj) needs to be strictly interpreted by applying the Hayden's rule of Mischief and also the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of customs Vs M/Dilip Kumar And Company 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

RAMJI VAISH,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT(CC), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance ignoring that conditions of exception from application of section 40A(3) r'w Rule 6DDj) needs to be strictly interpreted by applying the Hayden's rule of Mischief and also the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of customs Vs M/Dilip Kumar And Company 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD vs. VIJAY STONE PRODUCTS, SONEBHADRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance ignoring that conditions of exception from application of section 40A(3) r'w Rule 6DDj) needs to be strictly interpreted by applying the Hayden's rule of Mischief and also the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of customs Vs M/Dilip Kumar And Company 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

VIJAY STONE PRODUCT,SONEBHADRA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance ignoring that conditions of exception from application of section 40A(3) r'w Rule 6DDj) needs to be strictly interpreted by applying the Hayden's rule of Mischief and also the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of customs Vs M/Dilip Kumar And Company 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

VIJAY STONE PRODUCT,SONEBHADRA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance ignoring that conditions of exception from application of section 40A(3) r'w Rule 6DDj) needs to be strictly interpreted by applying the Hayden's rule of Mischief and also the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of customs Vs M/Dilip Kumar And Company 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S JAI MAA SHARDA SERVICE STATION,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance ignoring that conditions of exception from application of section 40A(3) r'w Rule 6DDj) needs to be strictly interpreted by applying the Hayden's rule of Mischief and also the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of customs Vs M/Dilip Kumar And Company 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

RAMJI VAISH,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT(CC), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance ignoring that conditions of exception from application of section 40A(3) r'w Rule 6DDj) needs to be strictly interpreted by applying the Hayden's rule of Mischief and also the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of customs Vs M/Dilip Kumar And Company 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case