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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

56 assessee had sought adjournment of hearing till 20/07/2017 is misleading. He pointed out that the reports under Rule 9 and 9A of ITSC(P) Rules were already on the record of the Assessing Officer, which contained all the information sought for by the Assessing Officer. Moreover, in any case, whether the assessee delayed the assessment proceedings

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

56 assessee had sought adjournment of hearing till 20/07/2017 is misleading. He pointed out that the reports under Rule 9 and 9A of ITSC(P) Rules were already on the record of the Assessing Officer, which contained all the information sought for by the Assessing Officer. Moreover, in any case, whether the assessee delayed the assessment proceedings

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

56 assessee had sought adjournment of hearing till 20/07/2017 is misleading. He pointed out that the reports under Rule 9 and 9A of ITSC(P) Rules were already on the record of the Assessing Officer, which contained all the information sought for by the Assessing Officer. Moreover, in any case, whether the assessee delayed the assessment proceedings

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

56 assessee had sought adjournment of hearing till 20/07/2017 is misleading. He pointed out that the reports under Rule 9 and 9A of ITSC(P) Rules were already on the record of the Assessing Officer, which contained all the information sought for by the Assessing Officer. Moreover, in any case, whether the assessee delayed the assessment proceedings

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowances should have been made and thus in the assessment made u/s 153A(1)(b) of the I.T. Act should have been deleted the additions and disallowances made by the AO and assessment quashed and the learned C.I.T.(A) has erred both in law as well as on facts in dismissing grounds No. 1, 2 & 3 as per his order

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowances should have been made and thus in the assessment made u/s 153A(1)(b) of the I.T. Act should have been deleted the additions and disallowances made by the AO and assessment quashed and the learned C.I.T.(A) has erred both in law as well as on facts in dismissing grounds No. 1, 2 & 3 as per his order

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowances should have been made and thus in the assessment made u/s 153A(1)(b) of the I.T. Act should have been deleted the additions and disallowances made by the AO and assessment quashed and the learned C.I.T.(A) has erred both in law as well as on facts in dismissing grounds No. 1, 2 & 3 as per his order

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

section 145(3) of the act and once the said provision for rejection of account was not invoked then the addition made is unwarranted because for rejection of account invoking of provision of section 145(3) is a mandatory requirement. In this regard there are various decisions in support of the assessee including the decision of apex court and various

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

section 145(3) of the act and once the said provision for rejection of account was not invoked then the addition made is unwarranted because for rejection of account invoking of provision of section 145(3) is a mandatory requirement. In this regard there are various decisions in support of the assessee including the decision of apex court and various

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 in want of supporting voucher of expenses and added to the income of the assessee [Addition of Rs 6,23,742/] 62 Section 68 of the Income Tax Act (ITA) 1964 refers to the treatment of unexplained cash credits. This section places the onus of proof on the taxpayer who has received any Sum of money or property

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

1. On facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in restricting the GP rate 23% instead of 30% applied by the AO, without giving any finding as to why the GP rate of 30% as applied by AO was excessive and that the CIT(A) herself upholding the action of the AO in rejecting

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

1. On facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in restricting the GP rate 23% instead of 30% applied by the AO, without giving any finding as to why the GP rate of 30% as applied by AO was excessive and that the CIT(A) herself upholding the action of the AO in rejecting

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

1. On facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in restricting the GP rate 23% instead of 30% applied by the AO, without giving any finding as to why the GP rate of 30% as applied by AO was excessive and that the CIT(A) herself upholding the action of the AO in rejecting

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

1. On facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in restricting the GP rate 23% instead of 30% applied by the AO, without giving any finding as to why the GP rate of 30% as applied by AO was excessive and that the CIT(A) herself upholding the action of the AO in rejecting

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

1. On facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in restricting the GP rate 23% instead of 30% applied by the AO, without giving any finding as to why the GP rate of 30% as applied by AO was excessive and that the CIT(A) herself upholding the action of the AO in rejecting

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

1. On facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in restricting the GP rate 23% instead of 30% applied by the AO, without giving any finding as to why the GP rate of 30% as applied by AO was excessive and that the CIT(A) herself upholding the action of the AO in rejecting

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

1. On facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in restricting the GP rate 23% instead of 30% applied by the AO, without giving any finding as to why the GP rate of 30% as applied by AO was excessive and that the CIT(A) herself upholding the action of the AO in rejecting

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

1. On facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in restricting the GP rate 23% instead of 30% applied by the AO, without giving any finding as to why the GP rate of 30% as applied by AO was excessive and that the CIT(A) herself upholding the action of the AO in rejecting

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

1. On facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in restricting the GP rate 23% instead of 30% applied by the AO, without giving any finding as to why the GP rate of 30% as applied by AO was excessive and that the CIT(A) herself upholding the action of the AO in rejecting