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.129/Alld/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 6 (A.1) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. At the time of hearing before

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.129/Alld/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 6 (A.1) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. At the time of hearing before

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 recorded in the cash books maintained by the assessee, which were found during the course of survey operations u/s 133A on 24.02.2012, as detailed hereunder: S.No. Date Concerned Perons/Firm name Amount

DCIT CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. SHRI NEERAJ AGRAWAL, 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 recorded in the cash books maintained by the assessee, which were found during the course of survey operations u/s 133A on 24.02.2012, as detailed hereunder: S.No. Date Concerned Perons/Firm name Amount

GRIJESH TIWARI,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO 2 (1), ALLAHABAD

In the result, ITA. No. 21/Alld/2023 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 21 & 22/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Grijesh Tiwari बिधम/ Ito-2(1) 22-A/16-A, T. B. Sapru Income Tax Office, 38 M. Vs. Road, Civil Lines, G. Marg, Allahabad- Allahabad-211001. 211001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akkpt9797R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Srishti Gupta Revenue By: Shri A. K. Singh (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

22-A/16-A, T. B. Sapru Income Tax Office, 38 M. Vs. Road, Civil Lines, G. Marg, Allahabad- Allahabad-211001. 211001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AKKPT9797R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Ms. Srishti Gupta Revenue by: Shri A. K. Singh (Sr. DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 14/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 04/10/2023 आदेश

GRIJESH TIWARI,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO 2 (1), ALLAHABAD

In the result, ITA. No. 21/Alld/2023 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 21 & 22/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Grijesh Tiwari बिधम/ Ito-2(1) 22-A/16-A, T. B. Sapru Income Tax Office, 38 M. Vs. Road, Civil Lines, G. Marg, Allahabad- Allahabad-211001. 211001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akkpt9797R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Srishti Gupta Revenue By: Shri A. K. Singh (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

22-A/16-A, T. B. Sapru Income Tax Office, 38 M. Vs. Road, Civil Lines, G. Marg, Allahabad- Allahabad-211001. 211001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AKKPT9797R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Ms. Srishti Gupta Revenue by: Shri A. K. Singh (Sr. DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 14/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 04/10/2023 आदेश

PANKAJ KUMAR CHOUBEY,MIRZAPUR vs. ITO, MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2011-12 Pankaj Kumar Choubey, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhorsar, Amoi, Mirzapur 3(2), Mirzapur Pan:Aaofm6183C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee For Want Of Compliance. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:- “1- That In Any View Of The Matter Assessment Order Passed U/S 144/147 Of The It Act Dated 06/12/2018 Is Bad Both On The Fact & In Law & By Such Order Income As Determined At Rs.32,22,490/- By Making Illegal Addition Is Highly Unjustified & Incorrect In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2- That Any View Of The Matter The Ld Cit(A), Nfac Was Wrong In Passing The Order Ex-Parte Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity To The Assessee & The Order Is Also Not A Speaking Order In The Eyes Of Law. 3- That In Any View Of The Matter Notice U/S 148 Of The It Act Dated 26/03/2018 As Mentioned In The Order Was Not Served On The Assessee Or On Any Family Member Of The Assessee, Therefore The Allegation Of Service Of The Notice In The Order Is Incorrect.

u/s 142(1) of the Act as alleged in the assessment order hence the entire assessment is illegal and bad in law and by such order Income as determined at Rs.32,22,490/- is not correct. 6- That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs. 32,22,490/- so made without appreciating the correct facts is incorrect

SHERVANI SUGAR SYNDICATE LIMITED,C/O B. K. KAPUR CO. vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. National Faceless Limited Assessment Centre 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad- Delhi. 201001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. Dc/Acit-2, Allahabad Limited Office Of The Assistant C/O 17, Navyug Market, Commissioner Of Income Ghaziabad-201001. Tax, Allahabad, Allahabad-211001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Madhav Kapur Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

22,628/-. 6. That each ground is independent and without prejudice to each other and requires separate adjudication. 7. That the assessee craves to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 2. These appeals have been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section

SHERVANI SUGAR SYNDICATE LIMITED,GHAZIABAD vs. DC/ACIT-2, ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. National Faceless Limited Assessment Centre 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad- Delhi. 201001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. Dc/Acit-2, Allahabad Limited Office Of The Assistant C/O 17, Navyug Market, Commissioner Of Income Ghaziabad-201001. Tax, Allahabad, Allahabad-211001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Madhav Kapur Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

22,628/-. 6. That each ground is independent and without prejudice to each other and requires separate adjudication. 7. That the assessee craves to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 2. These appeals have been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section

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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. During the course of assessment, the following additions were made by the ld. AO. i. On account of suppressed sale – Rs. 16,68,561/-. ii. On account of inflated expenses on the basis of print outs of CPU marked as KZ-1 – Rs. 20,76,268/-. iii. On account of repair

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. During the course of assessment, the following additions were made by the ld. AO. i. On account of suppressed sale – Rs. 16,68,561/-. ii. On account of inflated expenses on the basis of print outs of CPU marked as KZ-1 – Rs. 20,76,268/-. iii. On account of repair

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. During the course of assessment, the following additions were made by the ld. AO. i. On account of suppressed sale – Rs. 16,68,561/-. ii. On account of inflated expenses on the basis of print outs of CPU marked as KZ-1 – Rs. 20,76,268/-. iii. On account of repair

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

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