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

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

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 & 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

M/S JYOTI ERECTORS PVT LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 M/S Jyoti Erectors Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Near Amar Ujala Press Gt, Road, Circle-2, Allahabad Bamrauli, Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Aaccj0409K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Allahabad Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.02.2020. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Were As Under:- “1. That In Any View Of The Matter The Assessment Order Dated 30/12/2018 Framed U/S 143(3) Of The It Act Is Bad Both On The Facts & In Law & Vide Such Order The Income So Determined At Rs. 63,12,477/- In Arbitrary Manner Is Unjustified & Wrong Hence The Declared Income Of Rs. 18,86,600/- On The Basis Of Closed Books Of Accounts Should Have Been Accepted In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2- That In Any View Of The Matter The Addition Of Rs. 44,25,877/- As Made By The Assessing Officer By Applying A Net Rate Of 7 Percent On Declared Receipt Of Rs. 9,01,78,242/- By Ignoring Closed Books Of Accounts Is Highly Unjustified & Wrong & Also Provisions Of Section 145(3) Of The It Act Has Been Wrongly Invoked. Moreover No Comparable Case Has Been Cited By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Order For Applying Such Higher Net Profit Rate Nor Past History In Assessee Own Case Was Considered Hence The Addition So Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By Cit(A) Is Highly Unjustified.

u/s 143(3) of the IT Act is bad both on the facts and in law and vide such order the income so determined at Rs. 63,12,477/- in arbitrary manner is unjustified and wrong hence the declared income of Rs. 18,86,600/- on the basis of closed books of accounts should have been accepted in the facts