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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

66 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 67 (J.1.1) Further, in the case of Pr.CIT (Central) & Anr. Vs. Siddarth Gupta (supra), Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held as under: I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 68 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

66 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 67 (J.1.1) Further, in the case of Pr.CIT (Central) & Anr. Vs. Siddarth Gupta (supra), Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held as under: I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 68 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years

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 & 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

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

UMRAO SINGH SMARAK SAMITI,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

66,292/-. The return was processed by the CPC u/s 143(1) dated 26.09.2019. Thereafter, an order was passed under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Assistant Director of Income tax, CPC, Bangalore by disallowing

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

66,322/-, Rs 5,48,881/-, Rs 3,06,876/- and 52,323/- respectively. In this way you have debited your P&L a/c under this head by a sum of (Rs 58918/+ 1,29,841/+1,20,354/- + 18,352/-) Rs 3,27,465/- more than that was admissible. Please explain as to why Rs 327,465/-should

ACIT,, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S KESARWANI & CO., ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2010-11. As the issues involved in these appeals are common, these appeals are being taken up for disposal together for the sake of convenience. The grounds of appeal in the appeals and Cross Objection are as under:- C.O. No.24/Alld/2014 M/s Kesarwani & Co. “1. That the learned

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2010-11. As the issues involved in these appeals are common, these appeals are being taken up for disposal together for the sake of convenience. The grounds of appeal in the appeals and Cross Objection are as under:- C.O. No.24/Alld/2014 M/s Kesarwani & Co. “1. That the learned

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

66,77,556/- as against the declared net profit rate of 2.02%. He also made an addition of Rs.56,69,837/- on account of short receipts as disclosed above and thus assessed the total net profit at Rs.79,09,394/- on total receipts of Rs.11,29,91,342/-. 4. Aggrieved with this addition, the assessee went in appeal before

ARUP BANERJI,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Arup Banerji, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 14/18, Elgin Road, Allahabad Income Tax, Circle-1, Allahabad Pan:Acupb7330A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 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), Nfac Dismissing His Appeal Against The Order Of The Dcit, Circle-1, Allahabad Passed On 30.12.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That Appellant Does Not Want To Pursue The Appeal & Dismissing Appeal Ex- Party Without Affording An Adequate & Effective Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Allowing The Set-Off Of Loss From Derivative Trading Of Rs. 66,05,524/- Brought Forward From Assessment Year 2008-09 Against The Current Year Income Of Rs. 60,19,056/- Earned From Derivative Trading. 3. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Wrongly Conceived The Fact That Appellant Has Brought Forward Loss From Trading In 'Commodity Derivatives' As Per Clause (E) Of Section 43(5) Whereas The Appellant Has Brought Forward Loss From Trading In 'Derivative' As Per Clause

66,05,524/- brought forward from assessment year 2008-09 against the current year income of Rs. 60,19,056/- earned from derivative trading. 3. BECAUSE the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has wrongly conceived the fact that appellant has brought forward loss from trading in 'commodity derivatives' as per clause (e) of section 43(5) whereas the appellant

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section 147 of the Act against the appellant on the ground that substantial amount has been deposited by the appellant in her bank account and no return has been ITA Nos.50

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section 147 of the Act against the appellant on the ground that substantial amount has been deposited by the appellant in her bank account and no return has been ITA Nos.50

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section 147 of the Act against the appellant on the ground that substantial amount has been deposited by the appellant in her bank account and no return has been ITA Nos.50

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section 147 of the Act against the appellant on the ground that substantial amount has been deposited by the appellant in her bank account and no return has been ITA Nos.50

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section 147 of the Act against the appellant on the ground that substantial amount has been deposited by the appellant in her bank account and no return has been ITA Nos.50