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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

4. That the documents, explanations filed by the Appellant, and the material available on record have not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and have been wrongly ignored. 5. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has .erred in law and on facts in charging the interest under Sections 234A, 234B, & 234C

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

4. That the documents, explanations filed by the Appellant, and the material available on record have not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and have been wrongly ignored. 5. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has .erred in law and on facts in charging the interest under Sections 234A, 234B, & 234C

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75,000/- disallowed by the AO. 12.2 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 the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75,000/- disallowed by the AO. 12.2 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 the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75,000/- disallowed by the AO. 12.2 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 the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75,000/- disallowed by the AO. 12.2 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 the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75,000/- disallowed by the AO. 12.2 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 the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75,000/- disallowed by the AO. 12.2 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 the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75,000/- disallowed by the AO. 12.2 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 the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75,000/- disallowed by the AO. 12.2 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 the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75,000/- disallowed by the AO. 12.2 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 the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75,000/- disallowed by the AO. 12.2 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 the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant

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 & 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