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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

reassessment order in search cases, then, it is the duty of the JCIT to exercise such powers by applying his judicious mind. We are of the view that the obligation of the approval of the Approving Authority is of two folds ; on one hand, he has to apply his mind to secure in build for the Department against any omission

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

reassessment order in search cases, then, it is the duty of the JCIT to exercise such powers by applying his judicious mind. We are of the view that the obligation of the approval of the Approving Authority is of two folds ; on one hand, he has to apply his mind to secure in build for the Department against any omission

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

reassessment order in search cases, then, it is the duty of the JCIT to exercise such powers by applying his judicious mind. We are of the view that the obligation of the approval of the Approving Authority is of two folds ; on one hand, he has to apply his mind to secure in build for the Department against any omission

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

reassessment order in search cases, then, it is the duty of the JCIT to exercise such powers by applying his judicious mind. We are of the view that the obligation of the approval of the Approving Authority is of two folds ; on one hand, he has to apply his mind to secure in build for the Department against any omission

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

deduction from 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

deduction from 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)

deduction towards cost of improvement was rightly claimed by assessee while computing long term capital gains chargeable to tax. Thus, the assessee submitted before ld. Pr. CIT during the course of revisionary proceedings that the reassessment

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both appeals i

reassessment proceeding imperssible and liable to be withdrawn. 4. That in any view of the matter declared receipt were received were from government department through cheque supported by form no. 16A and accepted by AO in original assessment hence action of the assessing officer under the proceeding u/s 148 of the IT Act. is not correct. 5. That

M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both appeals i

reassessment proceeding imperssible and liable to be withdrawn. 4. That in any view of the matter declared receipt were received were from government department through cheque supported by form no. 16A and accepted by AO in original assessment hence action of the assessing officer under the proceeding u/s 148 of the IT Act. is not correct. 5. That

M/S. SUBHASH STONE INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NAINITAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

deduction of TDS Rs.1,19,950/- e) Disallowance of Proportionate Expenses Rs.1,55,700/- ----------------- Total Rs. 6,26,650/- 5 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s Subhash Stone Industries Private Limited (Formerly Rajluxmi Stone Crushers Private Limited) v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad ------------------- Hence, an addition of Rs. 6,26,650/- was made

AROTI GHOSH,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

reassessment proceeding under section 147 is altogether fallacious and not into existence at all. 5. BECAUSE no notice under section 143(2) has been served upon appellant within stipulated time, therefore the whole of the assessment proceeding is vitiated for want of valid jurisdiction. 6. BECAUSE the NFAC has erred in law and on facts in sustaining addition of Rs.39

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

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 invoking the provision section 145(3) and sustaining addition of Rs. 2,15,705/- by applying the net profit rate of 1% on disclosed sales. 4. BECAUSE the appellant is maintaining regular

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 invoking the provision section 145(3) and sustaining addition of Rs. 2,15,705/- by applying the net profit rate of 1% on disclosed sales. 4. BECAUSE the appellant is maintaining regular

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 invoking the provision section 145(3) and sustaining addition of Rs. 2,15,705/- by applying the net profit rate of 1% on disclosed sales. 4. BECAUSE the appellant is maintaining regular

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 invoking the provision section 145(3) and sustaining addition of Rs. 2,15,705/- by applying the net profit rate of 1% on disclosed sales. 4. BECAUSE the appellant is maintaining regular

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 invoking the provision section 145(3) and sustaining addition of Rs. 2,15,705/- by applying the net profit rate of 1% on disclosed sales. 4. BECAUSE the appellant is maintaining regular

SHYAM BABU KESARWANI,KAUSHAMBI vs. ITO WARD- 2 (5), KAUSHAMBI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Shyam Babu Kesarwani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tilhapur Mor, Kaushambi Ward-2(5), Kaushambi Pan:Bgepk4506N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 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 Act Passed On 22.12.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:- “1. That In Any View Of The Matter Assessment Made U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act By Order Dated 31.10.2019 On Income Of Rs.28,27,870/- Is Bad Both On The Fact & In Law. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter Proceeding As Initiated U/S 147 Is Not Valid Proceeding In The Eyes Of Law Since No Material Was Brought On Record That Assessee Has Concealed Any Income & The Issue Again Taken Up In The Reassessment Proceeding Which Was Already Before The Assessing Officer At The Time Of Original Assessment & After Due Application Of Mind The Then Assessing Officer Passed Speaking Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Hence Simply On Change Of Opinion The Reassessment Proceeding U/S 147 Of The Act As Initiated Are Bad In Law. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter The Addition Of Rs.25,25,415/- As Made By The Assessing Officer By Passing Ex-Parte Order On Account Of Excess Deposit In Bank Considered As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act Is Highly Unjustified & His Action As Confirmed By Cit(A) Is Highly Unjustified.

reassessment proceeding u/s 147 of the Act cannot be initiated simply on the change of opinion as done in the present case hence entire action is not valid action in the eyes of law. 5. That in any view of the matter the finding and observation of the assessing officer with regard to addition of Rs.25,25,415/- as added