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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty. In this regard they placed reliance on the case of Sardar Harinder Singh vs. ITAT [1996] 219 ITR 257 (All). They also contended that no infirmity can be attributed in the statutory approvals even when it was not recorded in so many words. They placed reliance on the case of Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) vs. ACIT

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty. In this regard they placed reliance on the case of Sardar Harinder Singh vs. ITAT [1996] 219 ITR 257 (All). They also contended that no infirmity can be attributed in the statutory approvals even when it was not recorded in so many words. They placed reliance on the case of Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) vs. ACIT

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty. In this regard they placed reliance on the case of Sardar Harinder Singh vs. ITAT [1996] 219 ITR 257 (All). They also contended that no infirmity can be attributed in the statutory approvals even when it was not recorded in so many words. They placed reliance on the case of Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) vs. ACIT

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty. In this regard they placed reliance on the case of Sardar Harinder Singh vs. ITAT [1996] 219 ITR 257 (All). They also contended that no infirmity can be attributed in the statutory approvals even when it was not recorded in so many words. They placed reliance on the case of Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) vs. ACIT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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