SMT. AMITA RAJVEDI,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kochar

143(2) on 28.9.2018. Simultaneously, the notices under section 148 were issued on 17.10.2018 to reopen the assessment for the assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17. The Assessing Officer issued notices under section 142(1) for all the four years but the assessee did not file the return of income in response to notice under section 148 and also

SMT. AMITA RAJVEDI,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kochar

143(2) on 28.9.2018. Simultaneously, the notices under section 148 were issued on 17.10.2018 to reopen the assessment for the assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17. The Assessing Officer issued notices under section 142(1) for all the four years but the assessee did not file the return of income in response to notice under section 148 and also

SMT. AMITA RAJVEDI,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kochar

143(2) on 28.9.2018. Simultaneously, the notices under section 148 were issued on 17.10.2018 to reopen the assessment for the assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17. The Assessing Officer issued notices under section 142(1) for all the four years but the assessee did not file the return of income in response to notice under section 148 and also

LATE SRI ZIA USMANI THROUGH L/H AND WIFE SMT. MEHVISH USMANI,ALLAHABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

section 139(1) or by such notice. *have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice u/s 22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or u/s 142(1) 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. *have concealed the particulars of your income………………...furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. You are hereby requested to appear

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.114/Alld//2025 (A.Y. 12-13) “1. That the notice dated 03.04.2013 issued under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act’) and the assessment order dated 31.07.2017 passed under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act by the Assistant

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.114/Alld//2025 (A.Y. 12-13) “1. That the notice dated 03.04.2013 issued under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act’) and the assessment order dated 31.07.2017 passed under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act by the Assistant

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.114/Alld//2025 (A.Y. 12-13) “1. That the notice dated 03.04.2013 issued under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act’) and the assessment order dated 31.07.2017 passed under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act by the Assistant

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.114/Alld//2025 (A.Y. 12-13) “1. That the notice dated 03.04.2013 issued under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act’) and the assessment order dated 31.07.2017 passed under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act by the Assistant

RAVINDRA NATH PATEL ,MAHARAJGANJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GORKHPUR, GORKHPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaravindra Nath Patel Kasmaria V. Income Tax Officer Kasmaria, Maharajganj, Uttar Aayakar Bhawan, Income Pradesh-273303. Tax Office, Anand Nagar Road, Maharajganj, Up- 273165. Pan: Akbpp8792R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms Vidisha Srivastava, Adv Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr O R D E R

143(3) of the Act at Rs.15,39,490/- as against the returned income of the assessee of Rs.1,49,140/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also passed order dated 19.03.2015 levying penalty u/s

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

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 belatedly and that after show cause notice

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

u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after considering the facts

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

u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after considering the facts

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

u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after considering the facts

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

u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after considering the facts

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

u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after considering the facts

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

u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after considering the facts

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

u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after considering the facts

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

u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after considering the facts

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

u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after considering the facts