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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 153A have been framed by ACIT, Central Circle, New Delhi, therefore, prior approval of the JCIT in respect of each assessment year referred to under section 153A or 153B shall have to be obtained. Thus, no order of assessment or re-assessment shall be passed by the A.O. in the present cases in respect of each assessment years under

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 153A have been framed by ACIT, Central Circle, New Delhi, therefore, prior approval of the JCIT in respect of each assessment year referred to under section 153A or 153B shall have to be obtained. Thus, no order of assessment or re-assessment shall be passed by the A.O. in the present cases in respect of each assessment years under

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

35 electronically on 14.06.2016 giving detail of filing fee deposited on 04.04.2016. 3. BECAUSE the reassessment proceeding under section 147 has neither

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

Section 2(24)(x) of the 1961 Act, vide reassessment order dated 31.12.2009. 8. Aggrieved by re-assessment framed by the AO , the assessee filed first appeal before learned CIT(A) and submitted as under.:- “The Ld. A.R. for the appellant has submitted as under- “As per clause (1) of Paragraph 38 of Employee’s Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, Employee

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

Section 2(24)(x) of the 1961 Act, vide reassessment order dated 31.12.2009. 8. Aggrieved by re-assessment framed by the AO , the assessee filed first appeal before learned CIT(A) and submitted as under.:- “The Ld. A.R. for the appellant has submitted as under- “As per clause (1) of Paragraph 38 of Employee’s Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, Employee

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

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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 the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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 the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened