ACIT,ALLAHABAD vs. M/S SUNSINE INFRASTATE PVT TTD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner Of Sunshine Infraestate Income-Tax, Central Circle, V. Private Limited Allahabad, U.P. 17, Industrial Area, Naini, Allahabad, U.P. Pan: Aancs9247H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 22/Alld/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.103/Alld/2017) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sunshine Infraestate Private Limited The Assistant 17, Industrial Area, Naini, V. Commissioner Of Allahabad, U.P. Income-Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad, U.P. Pan: Aancs9247H (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassess returns of assessee not only for undisclosed income found during search operation but also with regard to material available at the time of original assessment.” 2b. The assessee has raised following grounds in C.O. filed with tribunal: “1. That in any view of the matter it is not correct to say that the learned Commissioner of Income(Appeal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. M/S. J.P.YADAV , SONEBHADRA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

u/s 142(1) of the 1961 Act, which could not be complied with by the assessee, and the AO did not give any further opportunity to the assessee and passed an ex-parte reassessment order under Section 144 read with Section 147

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

1 pees. 8GB” . He also drew our attention to the report of an expert (included in the paper book, filed by the assessee) in which it has been mentioned that there were approximately 40,434 seized documents, 7 CPUs, 26 HDDs and one laptop seized during the search u/s 132 of the Act. The expert has opined that the storage

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

1 pees. 8GB” . He also drew our attention to the report of an expert (included in the paper book, filed by the assessee) in which it has been mentioned that there were approximately 40,434 seized documents, 7 CPUs, 26 HDDs and one laptop seized during the search u/s 132 of the Act. The expert has opined that the storage

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

1 pees. 8GB” . He also drew our attention to the report of an expert (included in the paper book, filed by the assessee) in which it has been mentioned that there were approximately 40,434 seized documents, 7 CPUs, 26 HDDs and one laptop seized during the search u/s 132 of the Act. The expert has opined that the storage

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

1 pees. 8GB” . He also drew our attention to the report of an expert (included in the paper book, filed by the assessee) in which it has been mentioned that there were approximately 40,434 seized documents, 7 CPUs, 26 HDDs and one laptop seized during the search u/s 132 of the Act. The expert has opined that the storage

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD vs. JEEVAN JYOTI CHARITABLE TRUST, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

1)(iiia) of the Act. Hence, specified date shall be the date on which the order under sub-section (4) of section 245D was passed for not providing for the terms of the settlement. 20. Therefore on examining the provisions as hereinabove, relating to the limitation of assessment in cases abated before Settlement Commission, it is clearly evident that

ARPIT HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

1)(iiia) of the Act. Hence, specified date shall be the date on which the order under sub-section (4) of section 245D was passed for not providing for the terms of the settlement. 20. Therefore on examining the provisions as hereinabove, relating to the limitation of assessment in cases abated before Settlement Commission, it is clearly evident that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), ALLAHABAD vs. JEEVAN JYOTI CHARITABLE TRUST, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

1)(iiia) of the Act. Hence, specified date shall be the date on which the order under sub-section (4) of section 245D was passed for not providing for the terms of the settlement. 20. Therefore on examining the provisions as hereinabove, relating to the limitation of assessment in cases abated before Settlement Commission, it is clearly evident that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD vs. NAVJEEVAN PEDIATRICS PRIVATE LIMITED, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

1)(iiia) of the Act. Hence, specified date shall be the date on which the order under sub-section (4) of section 245D was passed for not providing for the terms of the settlement. 20. Therefore on examining the provisions as hereinabove, relating to the limitation of assessment in cases abated before Settlement Commission, it is clearly evident that

JEEVAN JYOTI INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD , ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

1)(iiia) of the Act. Hence, specified date shall be the date on which the order under sub-section (4) of section 245D was passed for not providing for the terms of the settlement. 20. Therefore on examining the provisions as hereinabove, relating to the limitation of assessment in cases abated before Settlement Commission, it is clearly evident that

MINTO COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

1)(iiia) of the Act. Hence, specified date shall be the date on which the order under sub-section (4) of section 245D was passed for not providing for the terms of the settlement. 20. Therefore on examining the provisions as hereinabove, relating to the limitation of assessment in cases abated before Settlement Commission, it is clearly evident that

VANDANA BANSAL L/H OF LATE DR. ASHWANI KUMAR BANSAL, ,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

1)(iiia) of the Act. Hence, specified date shall be the date on which the order under sub-section (4) of section 245D was passed for not providing for the terms of the settlement. 20. Therefore on examining the provisions as hereinabove, relating to the limitation of assessment in cases abated before Settlement Commission, it is clearly evident that

VANDANA BANSAL L/H OF LATE DR. ASHWANI KUMAR BANSAL, ,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

1)(iiia) of the Act. Hence, specified date shall be the date on which the order under sub-section (4) of section 245D was passed for not providing for the terms of the settlement. 20. Therefore on examining the provisions as hereinabove, relating to the limitation of assessment in cases abated before Settlement Commission, it is clearly evident that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL CIRCLE), ALLAHABAD vs. JEEVAN JYOTI CHARITABLE TRUST, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

1)(iiia) of the Act. Hence, specified date shall be the date on which the order under sub-section (4) of section 245D was passed for not providing for the terms of the settlement. 20. Therefore on examining the provisions as hereinabove, relating to the limitation of assessment in cases abated before Settlement Commission, it is clearly evident that

ARPIT HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

1)(iiia) of the Act. Hence, specified date shall be the date on which the order under sub-section (4) of section 245D was passed for not providing for the terms of the settlement. 20. Therefore on examining the provisions as hereinabove, relating to the limitation of assessment in cases abated before Settlement Commission, it is clearly evident that

VANDANA BANSAL L/H OF LATE DR. ASHWANI KUMAR BANSAL, ,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

1)(iiia) of the Act. Hence, specified date shall be the date on which the order under sub-section (4) of section 245D was passed for not providing for the terms of the settlement. 20. Therefore on examining the provisions as hereinabove, relating to the limitation of assessment in cases abated before Settlement Commission, it is clearly evident that

MINTO DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE , ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

1)(iiia) of the Act. Hence, specified date shall be the date on which the order under sub-section (4) of section 245D was passed for not providing for the terms of the settlement. 20. Therefore on examining the provisions as hereinabove, relating to the limitation of assessment in cases abated before Settlement Commission, it is clearly evident that