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

reassessment. However, in view of the fact that section 153A contains non-obstante clause qua section 147, the consequential requirement of issuing notice u/s 143

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

143(3), dated 21.12.2010 was an unabated assessment, as it was framed by the AO prior to initiation of search and seizure operations conducted by Revenue against the assessee u/s 132(1), on 03.02.2011. We have observed that Section 153A mandates to assess or reassess

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

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer is illegal & bad in law as the same is passed without valid statutory approval in terms of Section 153D of the Act as the same was granted mechanically and without any application of mind. 3. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer is illegal & bad in law as the same is passed without valid statutory approval in terms of Section 153D of the Act as the same was granted mechanically and without any application of mind. 3. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer is illegal & bad in law as the same is passed without valid statutory approval in terms of Section 153D of the Act as the same was granted mechanically and without any application of mind. 3. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer is illegal & bad in law as the same is passed without valid statutory approval in terms of Section 153D of the Act as the same was granted mechanically and without any application of mind. 3. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

ARIES MARKETERS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2007-08

143 or section 147 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no notice shall be issued under section 148 by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of such

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)

143(3) of the 1961 Act, vide reassessment order dated 24.06.2016 , as in the opinion of Revenue , income by way of long term capital gains earned by assessee had escaped assessment , which had led to reopening of the concluded assessment by Revenue within the provisions of Section