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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

v) [2001] 252 ITR 712 (Madras), Lakshmi Jewellery vs. DCIT (H) Learned Departmental Representatives further contended that the approval u/s 153D of the Act was akin to approval u/s 274(2) of the Act and further that the approval u/s 274(2) of the Act was held to be a procedural requirement which did not go to the root

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

v) [2001] 252 ITR 712 (Madras), Lakshmi Jewellery vs. DCIT (H) Learned Departmental Representatives further contended that the approval u/s 153D of the Act was akin to approval u/s 274(2) of the Act and further that the approval u/s 274(2) of the Act was held to be a procedural requirement which did not go to the root

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

v) [2001] 252 ITR 712 (Madras), Lakshmi Jewellery vs. DCIT (H) Learned Departmental Representatives further contended that the approval u/s 153D of the Act was akin to approval u/s 274(2) of the Act and further that the approval u/s 274(2) of the Act was held to be a procedural requirement which did not go to the root

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

v) [2001] 252 ITR 712 (Madras), Lakshmi Jewellery vs. DCIT (H) Learned Departmental Representatives further contended that the approval u/s 153D of the Act was akin to approval u/s 274(2) of the Act and further that the approval u/s 274(2) of the Act was held to be a procedural requirement which did not go to the root

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

v. The Income Tax Officer S/o Shri Dal Singar Singh Ward 1(5) Kriya Yog Ashram & Research Allahabad Institute Jhunsi, Allahabad (U.P) PAN:BECPS4989F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal and Shri Ajit Kumar, Advocate Respondent by: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R PER BENCH: These TEN appeals have been preferred by two different assessees

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

v. The Income Tax Officer S/o Shri Dal Singar Singh Ward 1(5) Kriya Yog Ashram & Research Allahabad Institute Jhunsi, Allahabad (U.P) PAN:BECPS4989F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal and Shri Ajit Kumar, Advocate Respondent by: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R PER BENCH: These TEN appeals have been preferred by two different assessees

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

v. The Income Tax Officer S/o Shri Dal Singar Singh Ward 1(5) Kriya Yog Ashram & Research Allahabad Institute Jhunsi, Allahabad (U.P) PAN:BECPS4989F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal and Shri Ajit Kumar, Advocate Respondent by: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R PER BENCH: These TEN appeals have been preferred by two different assessees

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

v. The Income Tax Officer S/o Shri Dal Singar Singh Ward 1(5) Kriya Yog Ashram & Research Allahabad Institute Jhunsi, Allahabad (U.P) PAN:BECPS4989F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal and Shri Ajit Kumar, Advocate Respondent by: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R PER BENCH: These TEN appeals have been preferred by two different assessees

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

v. The Income Tax Officer S/o Shri Dal Singar Singh Ward 1(5) Kriya Yog Ashram & Research Allahabad Institute Jhunsi, Allahabad (U.P) PAN:BECPS4989F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal and Shri Ajit Kumar, Advocate Respondent by: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R PER BENCH: These TEN appeals have been preferred by two different assessees

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

v. The Income Tax Officer S/o Shri Dal Singar Singh Ward 1(5) Kriya Yog Ashram & Research Allahabad Institute Jhunsi, Allahabad (U.P) PAN:BECPS4989F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal and Shri Ajit Kumar, Advocate Respondent by: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R PER BENCH: These TEN appeals have been preferred by two different assessees

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

v. The Income Tax Officer S/o Shri Dal Singar Singh Ward 1(5) Kriya Yog Ashram & Research Allahabad Institute Jhunsi, Allahabad (U.P) PAN:BECPS4989F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal and Shri Ajit Kumar, Advocate Respondent by: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R PER BENCH: These TEN appeals have been preferred by two different assessees

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

v. The Income Tax Officer S/o Shri Dal Singar Singh Ward 1(5) Kriya Yog Ashram & Research Allahabad Institute Jhunsi, Allahabad (U.P) PAN:BECPS4989F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal and Shri Ajit Kumar, Advocate Respondent by: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R PER BENCH: These TEN appeals have been preferred by two different assessees

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

v. The Income Tax Officer S/o Shri Dal Singar Singh Ward 1(5) Kriya Yog Ashram & Research Allahabad Institute Jhunsi, Allahabad (U.P) PAN:BECPS4989F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal and Shri Ajit Kumar, Advocate Respondent by: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R PER BENCH: These TEN appeals have been preferred by two different assessees

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

v. The Income Tax Officer S/o Shri Dal Singar Singh Ward 1(5) Kriya Yog Ashram & Research Allahabad Institute Jhunsi, Allahabad (U.P) PAN:BECPS4989F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal and Shri Ajit Kumar, Advocate Respondent by: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R PER BENCH: These TEN appeals have been preferred by two different assessees

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

v. On account of disallowance of diesel expenses – Rs.8,70,985/-. vi. On account of 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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

v. On account of disallowance of diesel expenses – Rs.8,70,985/-. vi. On account of 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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

v. On account of disallowance of diesel expenses – Rs.8,70,985/-. vi. On account of 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