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

2. That in any view of the matter in compliance to notices u/s 142(1) of the IT Act, the appellant made compliances all those notices vide his replies hence the allegation of non compliances as made by the assessing officer is totally incorrect as such imposition of penalty is uncalled for as the order passed by lower authorities

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

2. That in any view of the matter in compliance to notices u/s 142(1) of the IT Act, the appellant made compliances all those notices vide his replies hence the allegation of non compliances as made by the assessing officer is totally incorrect as such imposition of penalty is uncalled for as the order passed by lower authorities

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

2. That in any view of the matter in compliance to notices u/s 142(1) of the IT Act, the appellant made compliances all those notices vide his replies hence the allegation of non compliances as made by the assessing officer is totally incorrect as such imposition of penalty is uncalled for as the order passed by lower authorities

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

u/s section 11. (3) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of net excess of income over expenditure of Rs.3,00,11,855/ under the head Income from business or profession. (4) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.36

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

u/s section 11. (3) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of net excess of income over expenditure of Rs.3,00,11,855/ under the head Income from business or profession. (4) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.36

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

u/s section 11. (3) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of net excess of income over expenditure of Rs.3,00,11,855/ under the head Income from business or profession. (4) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.36

SHRI KAMALENDRA BHADUR MISHRA,,SONEBHADRA vs. DCIT, RANGE-III, MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kamalendra Bhadur Mishra V. Dcit Prop. M/S K.S. Engineearing Range Iii Iii-19, Jme Colony Mirzapur Shakti Dnagar, Sonebhadra Tan/Pan:Adbpm4445K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K.R. Singh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13 02 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 02 2020 O R D E R

u/s 271 (1) (c) lie in case of estimated income. 2. The grievance of the assessee is against imposition of penalty under section

PRINCIPAL MAULANA AZAD INTER COLLEGE,,SIDDHARTH NAGAR vs. JOINT CIT(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

section 2272A(2)(k) as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A) are ex parte. The learned DR has referred to the penalty order as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A) and submitted that there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued by the AO and the CIT(A). Thus the delay

PRINCIPAL MAULANA AZAD INTER COLLEGE,,SIDDHARTH NAGAR vs. JOINT CIT(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

section 2272A(2)(k) as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A) are ex parte. The learned DR has referred to the penalty order as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A) and submitted that there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued by the AO and the CIT(A). Thus the delay

PRINCIPAL MAULANA AZAD INTER COLLEGE,,SIDDHARTH NAGAR vs. JOINT CIT(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

section 2272A(2)(k) as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A) are ex parte. The learned DR has referred to the penalty order as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A) and submitted that there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued by the AO and the CIT(A). Thus the delay

PRINCIPAL MAULANA AZAD INTER COLLEGE,,SIDDHARTH NAGAR vs. JOINT CIT(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

section 2272A(2)(k) as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A) are ex parte. The learned DR has referred to the penalty order as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A) and submitted that there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued by the AO and the CIT(A). Thus the delay

PRINCIPAL MAULANA AZAD INTER COLLEGE,,SIDDHARTH NAGAR vs. JOINT CIT(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

section 2272A(2)(k) as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A) are ex parte. The learned DR has referred to the penalty order as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A) and submitted that there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued by the AO and the CIT(A). Thus the delay

M/S GANGA NURSING HOME,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT,, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is issued on this point.” 4. The assessee being aggrieved by an assessment framed by the AO filed first appeal with Ld. CIT (A) , who after considering the contentions of the assessee 5 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ganga Nursing Home v. DCIT, Range-1, Allahabad decided appeal against

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

section 271(1)(c) on 05.03.2024 imposing the penalty of Rs. 3,04,000/- whereas a request letter was submitted before the Ld. AO to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of appeal by the Hon’ble ITAT Circuit Bench Varanasi but without considering the request of the appellant the LAO has imposed the penalty which