M/S MEZA FILLING STATION ,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , ALLAHABAD

In the result, Appeal i.e

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao

reassessment proceeding under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. BECAUSE the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in holding that addition of 5,52,345/- made substantively in the hand of Shri Ajay Kumar & Vijay Kumar and protectively in the hands of appellant is to be examined on merit

M/S MEZA FILLING STATION ,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , ALLAHABAD

In the result, Appeal i.e

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao

reassessment proceeding under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. BECAUSE the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in holding that addition of 5,52,345/- made substantively in the hand of Shri Ajay Kumar & Vijay Kumar and protectively in the hands of appellant is to be examined on merit

M/S MEZA FILLING STATION ,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , ALLAHABAD

In the result, Appeal i.e

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao

reassessment proceeding under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. BECAUSE the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in holding that addition of 5,52,345/- made substantively in the hand of Shri Ajay Kumar & Vijay Kumar and protectively in the hands of appellant is to be examined on merit

M/S MEZA FILLING STATION ,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , ALLAHABAD

In the result, Appeal i.e

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao

reassessment proceeding under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. BECAUSE the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in holding that addition of 5,52,345/- made substantively in the hand of Shri Ajay Kumar & Vijay Kumar and protectively in the hands of appellant is to be examined on merit

M/S MEZA FILLING STATION ,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , ALLAHABAD

In the result, Appeal i.e

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao

reassessment proceeding under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. BECAUSE the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in holding that addition of 5,52,345/- made substantively in the hand of Shri Ajay Kumar & Vijay Kumar and protectively in the hands of appellant is to be examined on merit

DCIT, CIRCLE-II , ALLAHABAD vs. BHARAT PUMPS & COMPRESSORS LTD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

business income and the same ought to be disallowed and added to the income of the assessee and brought to income-tax. The assessee during the course of reassessment

DCIT, CIRCLE-II , ALLAHABAD vs. BHARAT PUMPS & COMPRESSORS LTD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

business income and the same ought to be disallowed and added to the income of the assessee and brought to income-tax. The assessee during the course of reassessment

SANJAY MAJUMDAR,ALLAHABAD vs. PR. CIT, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Sanjay Majumdar, V. The Principal Commissioner Type Ii – 112, Devprayagam Of Income Tax, Sangam Vatika – Jhalwa, Aayakar Bhawan, Allahabad 211012 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad 211001 Pan: Adopm 2688P (Appellant) (Respondent)

business income, hence in 7 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sanjay Majumdar the light of articles of association of the company, it was held that view of the Assessing Officer was not prejudicial to the interest of revenue hence order u/s 263 was quashed. Here is not the case like that because of the fact that ASSESSING OFFICER has not appreciated

SWATANTRA MISHRA,GEORGE TOWN, ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Swatantra Mishra, Income Tax Officer, F-6 Tulsiani Enclave, Lowther Road, V. Ward-1(5), Allahabad George Town, Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Axvpm0471B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: None (Application) Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.09.2023 O R D E R

business were given in the return of income. Proceedings under section 147 read with Section 148 were initiated by AO on the basis of AIR information received that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 46,18,300/- in 2 A.Y. 2011-12 Swatantra Mishra four bank accounts , and also there was purchase of Mutual Funds amounting

M/S UDVASIT BEROJGAR SAHAKARI SHRAM SAMVIDA SAMITI LTD.,,SONBHADRA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19

reassessment was unjustified - S.R. Batliboi & Co. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 54, Kolkata - [2018] 100 taxmann.com 328 (Calcutta).” 3 3. The main thrust of the written submissions filed by the assessee is that the amended provisions of section 36(1) (va) as well as section 43B vide Finance Bill, 2021 is applicable only with effect from assessment year

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

income' taking into consideration the returns; and iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

income' taking into consideration the returns; and iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

income' taking into consideration the returns; and iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. M/S. J.P.YADAV , SONEBHADRA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

business of civil contract. The assessee originally filed its return of income with Revenue, on 30.09.2021 u/s 139(1) of the 1961 Act, declaring total income of Rs. 4,24,420/-. The aforesaid return of income filed by the assessee was processed by Revenue u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act. Later, the AO framed scrutiny assessment

SMT. NEETA NATH L/H OF LATE DR. JITENDRA NATH,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Smt. Neeta Nath, L/H Of Lt. Dr. Jitendra Nath Income Tax, Central Circle, Civil Lines, Allahabad B/401, Mayan Enclave, 49/13, Clive Road, Allahabad Pan-Abepn1795Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhurendra Nath, Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-502, Vinayak Le Grande, Income Tax, Central Circle, 16/12, Lal Bahadur Shastri Civil Lines, Allahabad Road, Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aaipn8161D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, Adv Respondent By: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2023 O R D E R Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M.: These Two Appeals By The Two Related Assessees Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 28.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. These Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 153C In Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Action Under Section 132(1) Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 05.12.2013 In The Case Of Shri. Hemant Kumar Sindhi. Therefore, The Facts & Circumstances As Well As The Grounds Of Appeal

business dealing with the appellant with Dinesh Kumar Pahuja. 13. BECAUSE the Id. CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and facts in holding that the fake entries appearing in the paper L-5, page124 back side belongs to the appellant despite the categorical finding given by the assessing officer that the disputed paper was found from the premises of Dinesh

MADHURENDRA NATH,ALLAHABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Smt. Neeta Nath, L/H Of Lt. Dr. Jitendra Nath Income Tax, Central Circle, Civil Lines, Allahabad B/401, Mayan Enclave, 49/13, Clive Road, Allahabad Pan-Abepn1795Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhurendra Nath, Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-502, Vinayak Le Grande, Income Tax, Central Circle, 16/12, Lal Bahadur Shastri Civil Lines, Allahabad Road, Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aaipn8161D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, Adv Respondent By: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2023 O R D E R Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M.: These Two Appeals By The Two Related Assessees Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 28.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. These Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 153C In Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Action Under Section 132(1) Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 05.12.2013 In The Case Of Shri. Hemant Kumar Sindhi. Therefore, The Facts & Circumstances As Well As The Grounds Of Appeal

business dealing with the appellant with Dinesh Kumar Pahuja. 13. BECAUSE the Id. CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and facts in holding that the fake entries appearing in the paper L-5, page124 back side belongs to the appellant despite the categorical finding given by the assessing officer that the disputed paper was found from the premises of Dinesh

SYED SHOEB ASHRAF,AMBEDKAR NAGAR vs. CIT(APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Syed Shoeb Ashraf, The Ito, 516, Vill & Post Baskhari, V. Ambedkar Nagar, U.P. Ambedkar Nagar-224129, U.P. Pan:Akrpa1580C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None (Application) Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.09.2023 O R D E R

business account to the tune of Rs. 77,25,140/- could not be ascertained ,which as per AO has escaped assessment within the meaning of the Section 147/148 of the 1961 Act. The Proceedings u/s 147 were initiated by AO. Notice under section 148 was issued by the AO, but the same remained un-complied with. No return of income

SHOBHA RASTOGI,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Shobha Rastogi, V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 30-A, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Tax, Circle-1, Allahabad, U.P. Allahabad, U.P. Pan-Afqpr4774R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.2021

reassessment framed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 143(2) on 29.06.2010 which is beyond the limitation and therefore the re-assessment framed by the Assessing Officer is invalid and liable