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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed by the AO. 8.3 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed by the AO. 8.3 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed by the AO. 8.3 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed by the AO. 8.3 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed by the AO. 8.3 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed by the AO. 8.3 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed by the AO. 8.3 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed by the AO. 8.3 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section

RAJENDRA TRIPATHI,MAHARAJGANJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), MAHARAJGANJ

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Rajendra Tripathi, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(4), Pharenda Road, Maharajganj Gorakhpur-273155, U.P. Pan:Aadfi7669A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 30.05.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Restricting The Relief To Rs.8,16,905/- (Being 30% Of The Overall Disallowance) Only As Against The Overall Disallowance Aggregating To Rs.27,23,015/- Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Various Heads Of Expenses Being "Advertisement & Publicity, Staff Welfare, Sales Promotion Expenses, Salary To Staff", While Passing The Assessment Order Dated 19.12.2019, As The Said Addition Itself Is Based On A Very Fallacious Ground That; "It Is Customary In Assessment Orders To Disallow Percentage Of Certain Expenses For Different Reasons. However In This Case I Rely On The Daily Observation Of The Staff Of The Income Tax Office, Maharajganj Who Are Sure That The Assessee Works Through Daily Wagers For Loading & Unloading Of Goods & Does Not Employ Any Staff. Besides The Above The Other Three Expenses Have Never Been Observed To Have Been Incurred."

section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Aggrieved with these additions, the assessee went before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A), in considering the reasons cited for disallowance

POOJA GROVER,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CIR-2,, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 69A of the Act and Rs.5,29,827/- on account of disallowance of depreciation. Aggrieved with the action of the I.T.A

GAJENDRA KUMAR,MAHOBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (2)(4 ), BANDA

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

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Gajendra Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 526, Rathaur Colony, Jaitpur, Ward-2(2)(4), Banda Belatal, Mahoba, U.P. Pan:Bitpk6827P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 3.01.2025, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ito, Ward-2(2)(4), Banda Dated 21.12.2019 Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Disallowing Appeal & Confirming The Addition Made By A.O. Of Rs. 25, 90,414/- As Cash Deposits Into Bank Account Under Section 69A Of It Act, 1961 Because All Notices Were Issued U/S 250 Of The Act On Itba Portal & No Physical Notice Was Issued To Appellant On Address Mentioned In Filed Itr & Filed Appeal & Has Disallowed Appeal Without Considering This Fact That Appellant Lives At Village Jaitpur Post Belataal, District Mahoba (U.P.) & Is Unknown About Information Technology. 2. That The Learned Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Disallowing Appeal & Confirming The Addition Made By A.O. Of Rs. 25, 90,414/- As Cash Deposits Into Bank Account Under Section 69A Of It Act, 1961 Without Considering This Fact That Appeal Was Filed By Advocate Dinesh Gupta Who Was Expired & Email Id In Profile Of Appellant Was Update By Him. Appellant Was Unknown About Login Id & Password Of Portal & Email Id Which Was Maintained By Late Advocate Dinesh Gupta.

disallowing appeal and confirming the addition made by A.O. of Rs. 25, 90,414/- as cash deposits into bank account under Section 69A

SANKAR LAL JAISWAL,,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO- 1(5), 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)

disallowance of Rs. 1,68,000/- by treating the same as unexplained, it was submitted that section 69A had no application

DINESH KUMAR SINGH,MIRZAPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

69A, 69B , 69C of the 1961 Act dealing with unexplained investments, unexplained money, unexplained expenditure etc. , deducting of income-tax at source on payments made by tax-payers(Chapter XVII-B), prohibition on making payment otherwise than through prescribed banking modes beyond threshold limits(Section 40A(3) ), dealing at arm length price while dealing with relatives and associated concerns

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

69A of the Act. Aggrieved with this order, the assessee went in appeal to the ld. CIT(A), Allahabad. Subsequently, the appeal was migrated to the NFAC. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that the assessee was engaged in the business of Poultry Farming and maintained regular books of account which were audited. It was submitted that during