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

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

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

SWATANTRA MISHRA,GEORGE TOWN, ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Swatantra Mishra, Income Tax Officer, F-6 Tulsiani Enclave, Lowther Road, V. Ward-1(5), Allahabad George Town, Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Axvpm0471B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: None (Application) Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.09.2023 O R D E R

68,300/- to the income of the assessee. Further, addition was made by the AO with respect to bank interest of Rs. 65,908/- , and also unexplained investment in Axis Bank Mutual Fund of Rs. 10,00,000/-, were added by AO to the income of the assessee, vide reassessment order dated 21.12.2018 passed

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

68 of 79 evidence or material in his possession, and rather he has admitted that he has no other information other than bank statements and, therefore, there was no propriety on the part of AO to make disallowance of expenditure without pointing out any specific instances. 13.9 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that alternatively, the assessee may be allowed

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

68 of 79 evidence or material in his possession, and rather he has admitted that he has no other information other than bank statements and, therefore, there was no propriety on the part of AO to make disallowance of expenditure without pointing out any specific instances. 13.9 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that alternatively, the assessee may be allowed

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

68 of 79 evidence or material in his possession, and rather he has admitted that he has no other information other than bank statements and, therefore, there was no propriety on the part of AO to make disallowance of expenditure without pointing out any specific instances. 13.9 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that alternatively, the assessee may be allowed

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

68 of 79 evidence or material in his possession, and rather he has admitted that he has no other information other than bank statements and, therefore, there was no propriety on the part of AO to make disallowance of expenditure without pointing out any specific instances. 13.9 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that alternatively, the assessee may be allowed

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

68 of 79 evidence or material in his possession, and rather he has admitted that he has no other information other than bank statements and, therefore, there was no propriety on the part of AO to make disallowance of expenditure without pointing out any specific instances. 13.9 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that alternatively, the assessee may be allowed

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

68 of 79 evidence or material in his possession, and rather he has admitted that he has no other information other than bank statements and, therefore, there was no propriety on the part of AO to make disallowance of expenditure without pointing out any specific instances. 13.9 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that alternatively, the assessee may be allowed

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

68 of 79 evidence or material in his possession, and rather he has admitted that he has no other information other than bank statements and, therefore, there was no propriety on the part of AO to make disallowance of expenditure without pointing out any specific instances. 13.9 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that alternatively, the assessee may be allowed

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

68 of 79 evidence or material in his possession, and rather he has admitted that he has no other information other than bank statements and, therefore, there was no propriety on the part of AO to make disallowance of expenditure without pointing out any specific instances. 13.9 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that alternatively, the assessee may be allowed

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

68 of 79 evidence or material in his possession, and rather he has admitted that he has no other information other than bank statements and, therefore, there was no propriety on the part of AO to make disallowance of expenditure without pointing out any specific instances. 13.9 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that alternatively, the assessee may be allowed

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

68 of 79 evidence or material in his possession, and rather he has admitted that he has no other information other than bank statements and, therefore, there was no propriety on the part of AO to make disallowance of expenditure without pointing out any specific instances. 13.9 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that alternatively, the assessee may be allowed