SBW UDYOG LIMITED,,PRAYAGRAJ vs. DCIT, CIR-1,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh.Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2021-22 Sbw Udyog Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 44, Thornhill Road, Prayagraj Tax, Circle-1, Prayagraj Pan:Aadcs2883B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. N.C. Agrawal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .03.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 31.01.2024, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cpc Bengaluru, Under Section, 143(1) Dated 17.10.2022. Subsequently, The Said Appeal Was Migrated To The Nfac & Later On, The Appeal Proceedings Were Transferred To The Additional / Jcit(A), Aurangabad, Who Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because, Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India Has Observed In The Notice Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Reads As Under:- "The Income Tax Department Recognizes & Is Sensitive To The Hardships Being Faced By Taxpayers In Coping With The Challenges Posed By Covid-19 Pandemic." Consequently, Appeal Is Liable To Be Allowed.

disallowance of Rs.43,04,355/- under section 36(1)(va)of the Act on delayed payment of Provident Fund and ESI received from the employees. Accordingly the grounds raised on this issue were dismissed. 4. The assessee is aggrieved with this order of the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) and has accordingly filed this appeal. Dr. N.C. Aggarwal, C.A. (hereinafter referred

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

90,770/-. Prior to the filing of such return, another return had earlier been filed under section 139(1), with the same returned income. That original return had been processed under section 143(1) and in this manner, all the necessary information / facts and figures had been brought on record much prior to the date of search. It was submitted

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

90,770/-. Prior to the filing of such return, another return had earlier been filed under section 139(1), with the same returned income. That original return had been processed under section 143(1) and in this manner, all the necessary information / facts and figures had been brought on record much prior to the date of search. It was submitted

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

90,770/-. Prior to the filing of such return, another return had earlier been filed under section 139(1), with the same returned income. That original return had been processed under section 143(1) and in this manner, all the necessary information / facts and figures had been brought on record much prior to the date of search. It was submitted

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.

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 and confirming the addition made by A.O. of Rs. 25, 90

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 153D of the Act were inserted by Finance Act, 2007 with effect from 01/06/2007. In our humble understanding of the said provisions, we are of the opinion that the Legislature wanted the assessment/reassessment of the search cases should be made and order should be passed with the prior approval of superior authority. The word approval has not been defined

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 153D of the Act were inserted by Finance Act, 2007 with effect from 01/06/2007. In our humble understanding of the said provisions, we are of the opinion that the Legislature wanted the assessment/reassessment of the search cases should be made and order should be passed with the prior approval of superior authority. The word approval has not been defined

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 153D of the Act were inserted by Finance Act, 2007 with effect from 01/06/2007. In our humble understanding of the said provisions, we are of the opinion that the Legislature wanted the assessment/reassessment of the search cases should be made and order should be passed with the prior approval of superior authority. The word approval has not been defined

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 153D of the Act were inserted by Finance Act, 2007 with effect from 01/06/2007. In our humble understanding of the said provisions, we are of the opinion that the Legislature wanted the assessment/reassessment of the search cases should be made and order should be passed with the prior approval of superior authority. The word approval has not been defined

SURENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CIR-2, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2002-03 Surendra Kumar Mishra, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 794A/1, Sohabatiyabagh, Income Tax, Circle-2, Allahabad Allahabad-211006, U.P. Pan:Aibpm4858R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2025 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), Under Section 250 R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.10.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Dismissing The 'Additional Ground' Relating To Non-Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act, Raised Before The Appellate Authority During The Course Of First Round Of Litigation, Which Has Been Remanded Back By The Hon'Ble Itat In Terms Of Order Dated 09.11.2012, By Observing That The Return Filed By The Appellant In Terms Of Letter Dated 10.11.2008 As Not A Valid Return In Compliance To Notice Dated 11.02.2008 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act, As The Said Letter Was Filed By The Appellant After The Time Limit Of 30 Days Provided To Do So In Terms Of Notice Dated 11.02.208 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act. 2. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Observing That The Appellant Could Not Have Demand For Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The 1 Surendra Kumar Mishra

section 48 of the Act. 12. BECAUSE the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in not allowing full deduction of expenses claimed (other than freehold charges) at Rs.15,73,360/- and in restricting the same to Rs.14,16,024/- (being 90% of the claimed amount). 13. BECAUSE adhoc disallowance

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

disallowance ignoring that conditions of exception from application of section 40A(3) r'w Rule 6DDj) needs to be strictly interpreted by applying the Hayden's rule of Mischief and also the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of customs Vs M/Dilip Kumar And Company 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

disallowance ignoring that conditions of exception from application of section 40A(3) r'w Rule 6DDj) needs to be strictly interpreted by applying the Hayden's rule of Mischief and also the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of customs Vs M/Dilip Kumar And Company 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

disallowance ignoring that conditions of exception from application of section 40A(3) r'w Rule 6DDj) needs to be strictly interpreted by applying the Hayden's rule of Mischief and also the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of customs Vs M/Dilip Kumar And Company 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

disallowance ignoring that conditions of exception from application of section 40A(3) r'w Rule 6DDj) needs to be strictly interpreted by applying the Hayden's rule of Mischief and also the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of customs Vs M/Dilip Kumar And Company 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

disallowance ignoring that conditions of exception from application of section 40A(3) r'w Rule 6DDj) needs to be strictly interpreted by applying the Hayden's rule of Mischief and also the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of customs Vs M/Dilip Kumar And Company 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S SUBHASH STONE PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED,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

disallowance ignoring that conditions of exception from application of section 40A(3) r'w Rule 6DDj) needs to be strictly interpreted by applying the Hayden's rule of Mischief and also the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of customs Vs M/Dilip Kumar And Company 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

disallowance ignoring that conditions of exception from application of section 40A(3) r'w Rule 6DDj) needs to be strictly interpreted by applying the Hayden's rule of Mischief and also the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of customs Vs M/Dilip Kumar And Company 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

disallowance ignoring that conditions of exception from application of section 40A(3) r'w Rule 6DDj) needs to be strictly interpreted by applying the Hayden's rule of Mischief and also the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of customs Vs M/Dilip Kumar And Company 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

disallowance ignoring that conditions of exception from application of section 40A(3) r'w Rule 6DDj) needs to be strictly interpreted by applying the Hayden's rule of Mischief and also the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of customs Vs M/Dilip Kumar And Company 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case