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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance of commission on sales Rs.11,20,165/-. 4. Aggrieved with the said additions, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), it challenged the order passed under section 153A(b) dated 20.12.2011, as being passed without jurisdiction. It denied its liability to be assessed under block assessment in the absence

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance of commission on sales Rs.11,20,165/-. 4. Aggrieved with the said additions, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), it challenged the order passed under section 153A(b) dated 20.12.2011, as being passed without jurisdiction. It denied its liability to be assessed under block assessment in the absence

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance of commission on sales Rs.11,20,165/-. 4. Aggrieved with the said additions, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), it challenged the order passed under section 153A(b) dated 20.12.2011, as being passed without jurisdiction. It denied its liability to be assessed under block assessment in the absence

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

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 by the AO to the income of the assessee on the aforestated

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

reassessment proceedings. 5.2 The ld. CIT(A) observed that reopening of the concluded assessment by the AO by invoking provisions of Section 147/148 was valid, as on perusal of the record reveals that the AO has issued notice u/s. 148 of the 1961 Act, after recording proper reasons and after obtaining prior approval of the ld. Pr. CIT, Allahabad

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that the reason has been given that assessee had deposited Rs.5,01,33,312/- but has not filed his ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 63 of 79 return

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that the reason has been given that assessee had deposited Rs.5,01,33,312/- but has not filed his ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 63 of 79 return

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that the reason has been given that assessee had deposited Rs.5,01,33,312/- but has not filed his ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 63 of 79 return

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that the reason has been given that assessee had deposited Rs.5,01,33,312/- but has not filed his ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 63 of 79 return

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that the reason has been given that assessee had deposited Rs.5,01,33,312/- but has not filed his ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 63 of 79 return

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that the reason has been given that assessee had deposited Rs.5,01,33,312/- but has not filed his ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 63 of 79 return

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that the reason has been given that assessee had deposited Rs.5,01,33,312/- but has not filed his ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 63 of 79 return

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that the reason has been given that assessee had deposited Rs.5,01,33,312/- but has not filed his ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 63 of 79 return

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that the reason has been given that assessee had deposited Rs.5,01,33,312/- but has not filed his ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 63 of 79 return

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance or addition in computation of income. He submitted that as can be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 that the reason has been given that assessee had deposited Rs.5,01,33,312/- but has not filed his ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 63 of 79 return

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

disallowed by invoking provisions of section 36(1) (va), read with section 2 (24) (x). 4. That 1TAT Lucknow Bench has followed the above view in the latest judgment of M/S Tirubala Internationa! Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 716/LKW/ 2016 AY 2013-14) Judgment date 17May, 2018 and in case M/S Axis Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT

VANDANA BANSAL L/H OF LATE DR. ASHWANI KUMAR BANSAL, ,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of section 144BA.]" 9.1 The above provisions of section 153D of the Act were inserted by Finance Act, 2007 with effect from 01/06/2007. In our humble understanding of the said

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL CIRCLE), ALLAHABAD vs. JEEVAN JYOTI CHARITABLE TRUST, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of section 144BA.]" 9.1 The above provisions of section 153D of the Act were inserted by Finance Act, 2007 with effect from 01/06/2007. In our humble understanding of the said