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

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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

35 taxman.com 293, to hold that since the assessee was not engaged in the business of investment in shares, interest bearing funds invested in shares of related company interest was liable to be disallowed under section 36(1)(iii). Observing that the assessee had unsecured loans amounting to Rs.2,38,32,073/- and interest on capital amounting to Rs.31

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

35 taxman.com 293, to hold that since the assessee was not engaged in the business of investment in shares, interest bearing funds invested in shares of related company interest was liable to be disallowed under section 36(1)(iii). Observing that the assessee had unsecured loans amounting to Rs.2,38,32,073/- and interest on capital amounting to Rs.31

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

35 taxman.com 293, to hold that since the assessee was not engaged in the business of investment in shares, interest bearing funds invested in shares of related company interest was liable to be disallowed under section 36(1)(iii). Observing that the assessee had unsecured loans amounting to Rs.2,38,32,073/- and interest on capital amounting to Rs.31

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 been validly initiated nor concluded therefore the assessment order dated 31.03.2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 is invalid and liable to be quashed as illegal and without jurisdiction. 4. BECAUSE the reasons recorded

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.

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 and in law. 2. That in any view

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

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

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