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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

2 A.Y. 2015-16 Arup Banerji contract notes and broker statement had been furnished by the assessee as well as the brokers in compliance to the notice issued under section 133(6) seeking the copy of the contract notes and the brokers statement of account. The assessee also submitted that in the previous assessment years, the dispute of setting

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

2. That in any view of the matter action under Section 132(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

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

2. That in any view of the matter action under Section 132(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

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

2. That in any view of the matter action under Section 132(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

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

2. That in any view of the matter action under Section 132(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

MADHU DUBEY,ALLAHABAD vs. DC/AC-1(1),ALLAHABAD, MG MARG ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 Madhu Dubey V. Dc/Ac-1(1) 657A/1, Jamuna Nagar, Chak Mg Marg, Allahabad- Raghunath, Naini-211008. 211001. Pan:Asipd8489J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

disallowed by income tax authority without verifying the same from treasury and also challan copy was missed by my accountant but same was paid to treasury to obtain liquor licence have a fact that how to obtain liquor without paying the licence fees whose income lam assessed during the year. So expenses against trade of liquour that is license fees

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)(iii). Observing that the assessee had unsecured loans amounting to Rs.2,38,32,073/- and interest on capital amounting to Rs.31

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)(iii). Observing that the assessee had unsecured loans amounting to Rs.2,38,32,073/- and interest on capital amounting to Rs.31

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)(iii). Observing that the assessee had unsecured loans amounting to Rs.2,38,32,073/- and interest on capital amounting to Rs.31

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

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

2,93,88,147/- made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after

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

2,93,88,147/- made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after