NEERAJ AGRAWAL,,MIRZAPUR vs. DCIT, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for concealment of income. Addition of Rs. 78,059/-/” 4c. The AO further observed that there are cash deposits

GYAN MATA RADHA SATYAM KRIYAYOG ASHRAM RESEARCH INSTITUTE, JHUSI, ALLAHABAD,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Years: 2011-12 Gyan Mata Radha Satyam Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kriyayog Ashram Research Ward 1(2), Institute, Jhusi, Allahabad Allahabad Tan/Pan:Airpr 1165L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, Ca Respondent By: Shri A.K. Singh, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2021 O R D E R

penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) be deleted. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that there is a default and non- compliance on the part of the assessee to the notice issued u/s. 142(1) dated 04.08.2018. The assessee has filed the reply

SWATANTRA MISHRA,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(5), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2011-12

penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act of Rs.10,000/- for non compliance of notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act. He has pointed out that the Assessing Officer has made the addition on account of cash deposit

CHANDRA BHAWAN,KAUSHAMBI vs. ITO WARD-2(5), , KAUSHAMBI

In the result, while appeal in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Chandra Bhawan, Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assis Chak Guraini, Baish Kanti, Kaushambi- Tant Commissioner Of Income 212206 Tax/Income-Tax Officer, Present Address National Faceless Assessment 39A/L/2, Om Prakash, Sabhasad Marg, Centre, Delhi Kalindipuram, Prayagraj-211011 Pan:Ahjpb4378C (Appellant) (Respondent) A.Y. 2016-17 Chandra Bhawan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chak Guraini, Baish Kanti, Kaushambi- Ward-2(5), Kaushambi 212206 Present Address 39A/L/2, Om Prakash, Sabhasad Marg, Kalindipuram, Prayagraj-211011 Pan:Ahjpb4378C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Mayank Arora, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 19.01.2024 (For The Assessment

U/s 250 by the Ld. First Appellate Authority is bad in law and against the facts.” 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 2.03.2017, declaring total income of Rs.3,10,370/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue, ‘whether the cash deposit

CHANDRA BHAWAN,KAUSHAMBI vs. ADDL./JOINT/ACIT/ITO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, while appeal in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Chandra Bhawan, Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assis Chak Guraini, Baish Kanti, Kaushambi- Tant Commissioner Of Income 212206 Tax/Income-Tax Officer, Present Address National Faceless Assessment 39A/L/2, Om Prakash, Sabhasad Marg, Centre, Delhi Kalindipuram, Prayagraj-211011 Pan:Ahjpb4378C (Appellant) (Respondent) A.Y. 2016-17 Chandra Bhawan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chak Guraini, Baish Kanti, Kaushambi- Ward-2(5), Kaushambi 212206 Present Address 39A/L/2, Om Prakash, Sabhasad Marg, Kalindipuram, Prayagraj-211011 Pan:Ahjpb4378C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Mayank Arora, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 19.01.2024 (For The Assessment

U/s 250 by the Ld. First Appellate Authority is bad in law and against the facts.” 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 2.03.2017, declaring total income of Rs.3,10,370/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue, ‘whether the cash deposit

KALYAN JI MISHRA,MIRZAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1), MIRZAPUR

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2009-10 Kalyan Ji Mishra, V. Income Tax Officer Range, Suriyawan, Mirzapur Civil Lines Road, Mirzapur Pan-Ahxpm48158 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Praveen Godbole, Ca Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.01.2022

cash deposit in this saving bank account. Apart from this, the Assessing Officer also made an addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of household expenses. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer levied the penalty u/s 27(1)(C) @ 100% of tax to be avoided vide the order dated 16.03.2015. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), ALLAHABAD vs. MONAD INFRASOLUTION LIMITED, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose and the Cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, V. Monad Infrasolution Limited, Ward-2(2), Allahabad C-80 Gtb Nagar Kareli, Allahabad, 211016 U.P. Pan-Aajcm2155J (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 01/Alld/2021 In Assessment Year: 2015-16 Monad Infrasolution Limited, V. Income Tax Officer, C-80 Gtb Nagar Kareli, Ward-2(2), Allahabad Allahabad, 211016 U.P. Pan-Aajcm2155J (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty order u/s 271 (1) (b) of the Income tax Act, 1961 dated 20.11.2017 was passed Imposing Rs. 10,000/-. Final Show cause notice dated 04.12.2017 was issued through registered post /email, fixing the date of compliance on 11.12.2017 at 12.50 P.M at 38 M.G Marg, Kayaker Bhawan and show cause why following addition may not be made in your

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

deposit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case and both the two lower authorities failed to consider the facts properly hence addition is unwarranted. 17. That in any view of the matter search action did not lead to discovery of unaccounted money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article and no books of account reveals undisclosed transaction

SUBHASH STONE PRODUCT (P) LTD.,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

deposit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case and both the two lower authorities failed to consider the facts properly hence addition is unwarranted. 17. That in any view of the matter search action did not lead to discovery of unaccounted money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article and no books of account reveals undisclosed transaction

RAMJI VAISH,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT(C.C.), 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

deposit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case and both the two lower authorities failed to consider the facts properly hence addition is unwarranted. 17. That in any view of the matter search action did not lead to discovery of unaccounted money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article and no books of account reveals undisclosed transaction

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

deposit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case and both the two lower authorities failed to consider the facts properly hence addition is unwarranted. 17. That in any view of the matter search action did not lead to discovery of unaccounted money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article and no books of account reveals undisclosed transaction

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

deposit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case and both the two lower authorities failed to consider the facts properly hence addition is unwarranted. 17. That in any view of the matter search action did not lead to discovery of unaccounted money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article and no books of account reveals undisclosed transaction

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

deposit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case and both the two lower authorities failed to consider the facts properly hence addition is unwarranted. 17. That in any view of the matter search action did not lead to discovery of unaccounted money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article and no books of account reveals undisclosed transaction

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

deposit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case and both the two lower authorities failed to consider the facts properly hence addition is unwarranted. 17. That in any view of the matter search action did not lead to discovery of unaccounted money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article and no books of account reveals undisclosed transaction

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

deposit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case and both the two lower authorities failed to consider the facts properly hence addition is unwarranted. 17. That in any view of the matter search action did not lead to discovery of unaccounted money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article and no books of account reveals undisclosed transaction

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

deposit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case and both the two lower authorities failed to consider the facts properly hence addition is unwarranted. 17. That in any view of the matter search action did not lead to discovery of unaccounted money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article and no books of account reveals undisclosed transaction

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

deposit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case and both the two lower authorities failed to consider the facts properly hence addition is unwarranted. 17. That in any view of the matter search action did not lead to discovery of unaccounted money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article and no books of account reveals undisclosed transaction

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

deposit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case and both the two lower authorities failed to consider the facts properly hence addition is unwarranted. 17. That in any view of the matter search action did not lead to discovery of unaccounted money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article and no books of account reveals undisclosed transaction