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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

35 (F.1.1) The learned Counsel for the assessee challenged the validity of approval granted u/s 153D of the Act on many grounds. To begin with, he contended that the approvals were given without due application of mind. In this regard he drew our attention to the fact that the draft assessment orders were sent to the JCIT by the Assessing

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

35 (F.1.1) The learned Counsel for the assessee challenged the validity of approval granted u/s 153D of the Act on many grounds. To begin with, he contended that the approvals were given without due application of mind. In this regard he drew our attention to the fact that the draft assessment orders were sent to the JCIT by the Assessing

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

35 taxman.com 293, to hold that since the assessee was not engaged in the business of investment in shares, interest bearing funds invested in shares of related company interest was liable to be disallowed under section 36(1

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

35 taxman.com 293, to hold that since the assessee was not engaged in the business of investment in shares, interest bearing funds invested in shares of related company interest was liable to be disallowed under section 36(1

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

35 taxman.com 293, to hold that since the assessee was not engaged in the business of investment in shares, interest bearing funds invested in shares of related company interest was liable to be disallowed under section 36(1

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING(P).LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT. CIT(OSD),, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

1) of the Income Tax Act in consequence to which the notice issued under Section 153A of the act without any incriminating material or any undisclosed income found during the course of search the block assessment made determining the income at Rs. 67,35,280.00/- as against returned income of Rs. 6,74,790.00/- is illegal, arbitrary and against

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING (P) LTD,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT. C.IT,(OSD), ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

1) of the Income Tax Act in consequence to which the notice issued under Section 153A of the act without any incriminating material or any undisclosed income found during the course of search the block assessment made determining the income at Rs. 67,35,280.00/- as against returned income of Rs. 6,74,790.00/- is illegal, arbitrary and against

M/S KESARWANI <ARKETING (P) LTD,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT (OSD),, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

1) of the Income Tax Act in consequence to which the notice issued under Section 153A of the act without any incriminating material or any undisclosed income found during the course of search the block assessment made determining the income at Rs. 67,35,280.00/- as against returned income of Rs. 6,74,790.00/- is illegal, arbitrary and against

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING (P) LTD,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,(OSD), ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

1) of the Income Tax Act in consequence to which the notice issued under Section 153A of the act without any incriminating material or any undisclosed income found during the course of search the block assessment made determining the income at Rs. 67,35,280.00/- as against returned income of Rs. 6,74,790.00/- is illegal, arbitrary and against

ACIT,, ALLAHABAD vs. KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance by Rs.73,16,513/- on account of bogus purchases even though the facts brought on records by the AO have been admitted by the CIT(A). 6. That the order of the Ld. CIT (A) being erroneous in law and on facts needs to be vacated and the order of the A.O. be restored.” 2. The facts

M/S KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance by Rs.73,16,513/- on account of bogus purchases even though the facts brought on records by the AO have been admitted by the CIT(A). 6. That the order of the Ld. CIT (A) being erroneous in law and on facts needs to be vacated and the order of the A.O. be restored.” 2. The facts

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

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

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

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)

1 and 2 to section 43(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, he decided to treat the loss from derivative transactions as a speculative loss and refused to allow it to be adjusted against the business income of the assessee. 3. The assessee is aggrieved at this denial of set off and accordingly filed an appeal

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

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 no explanation

PANNA LAL PRAJAPATI,MIRZAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 3(2), MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2011-12 Shri Panna Lal Prajapati, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhudev Dubey, Kai Gali, Ward-3(2), Mirzapur Bhatwa Ki Pokhari, Mirzapur Pan:Azeps1524N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl Cit(A)-Kolkata Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 27.03.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: “1. That In Any View Of The Matter Assessment Made On Income Of The Rs. 12,73,650/- By Order Dated 26.12.2018 Passed U/S 143 (3)/147 Of The I.T. Act Is Bad Both On The Facts & In Law. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter The Proceeding U/S 147 Of The Act As Initiated On The Allegation That Assessee Has Made Cash Deposit Amounting To Rs.30,63,500/- In Bank Account Which Remain Unexplained Is Not Correct Since The Cash Deposit Are From Disclosed Sources Hence The Satisfaction Recorded Is Not Correct & There Was No Independent Application Of Mind By The Assessing Officer Before Initiating Proceeding U/S 147 Of The Act. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter The Learned Cit Appeal Was Not Correct In Deciding The Appeal Ex-Parte Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity To The Assessee & The Order Not Speaking Order In The Eye Of Law.

35,000/-, the ld. AO issued a notice under section 148. No compliance was made by the assessee therefore, further notices under section 142(1) were issued. Subsequently, the assessee filed a return and therefore, a notice under section 142(2) was issued. The assessee submitted that he did the business of Metal Scrap and he had filed

MOHAMMAD NAZIM,FATEHPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4), FATEHPUR

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2014-15 Mr. Income Tax Officer, Mohammad Nazim, V. Ward-2(4), Fatehpur, Income Tax 133 Kheldar, Fatehpur-212601,U.P. Office, Fatehpur-212601,U.P. Pan:Agepn3675J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Mayank Arora, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Amlendu Nath Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.09.2023 O R D E R

35,000-00 on the grounds of non production of any proof since such brokerage was given in cash to different persons for arranging the sales. The Assessing Authority as well as Appellate Authority should have understood that this is a very small and genuine amount of brokerage which is very common in such types of sales and should have