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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely erred in giving partial relief of Rs.37.500/- only (i.e. restricting addition of 50% which has been calculated @ 7.5% of Rs.5,00,000/-), even after having accepting the fact that the amount

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely erred in giving partial relief of Rs.37.500/- only (i.e. restricting addition of 50% which has been calculated @ 7.5% of Rs.5,00,000/-), even after having accepting the fact that the amount

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely erred in giving partial relief of Rs.37.500/- only (i.e. restricting addition of 50% which has been calculated @ 7.5% of Rs.5,00,000/-), even after having accepting the fact that the amount

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely erred in giving partial relief of Rs.37.500/- only (i.e. restricting addition of 50% which has been calculated @ 7.5% of Rs.5,00,000/-), even after having accepting the fact that the amount

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely erred in giving partial relief of Rs.37.500/- only (i.e. restricting addition of 50% which has been calculated @ 7.5% of Rs.5,00,000/-), even after having accepting the fact that the amount

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely erred in giving partial relief of Rs.37.500/- only (i.e. restricting addition of 50% which has been calculated @ 7.5% of Rs.5,00,000/-), even after having accepting the fact that the amount

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely erred in giving partial relief of Rs.37.500/- only (i.e. restricting addition of 50% which has been calculated @ 7.5% of Rs.5,00,000/-), even after having accepting the fact that the amount

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely erred in giving partial relief of Rs.37.500/- only (i.e. restricting addition of 50% which has been calculated @ 7.5% of Rs.5,00,000/-), even after having accepting the fact that the amount

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

26 HDDs and one laptop seized during the search u/s 132 of the Act. The expert has opined that the storage of this data would require a memory of 200GB and that it was impossible to store it on a pen drive of 8GB capacity. The learned Counsel for the assessee also submitted that in any case there

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

26 HDDs and one laptop seized during the search u/s 132 of the Act. The expert has opined that the storage of this data would require a memory of 200GB and that it was impossible to store it on a pen drive of 8GB capacity. The learned Counsel for the assessee also submitted that in any case there

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

26 HDDs and one laptop seized during the search u/s 132 of the Act. The expert has opined that the storage of this data would require a memory of 200GB and that it was impossible to store it on a pen drive of 8GB capacity. The learned Counsel for the assessee also submitted that in any case there

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

26 HDDs and one laptop seized during the search u/s 132 of the Act. The expert has opined that the storage of this data would require a memory of 200GB and that it was impossible to store it on a pen drive of 8GB capacity. The learned Counsel for the assessee also submitted that in any case there

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

reassessment or re-computation shall be one year from the date of receipt of order of passed by the Settlement Commission. Since the order u/s 245D(4) was passed by the Settlement Commission on 17/08/2016 therefore the case shall not be barred by limitation before16//08/2017, i.e. one year from the date of order of the Settlement Commission not providing

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

reassessment or re-computation shall be one year from the date of receipt of order of passed by the Settlement Commission. Since the order u/s 245D(4) was passed by the Settlement Commission on 17/08/2016 therefore the case shall not be barred by limitation before16//08/2017, i.e. one year from the date of order of the Settlement Commission not providing

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

reassessment or re-computation shall be one year from the date of receipt of order of passed by the Settlement Commission. Since the order u/s 245D(4) was passed by the Settlement Commission on 17/08/2016 therefore the case shall not be barred by limitation before16//08/2017, i.e. one year from the date of order of the Settlement Commission not providing

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

reassessment or re-computation shall be one year from the date of receipt of order of passed by the Settlement Commission. Since the order u/s 245D(4) was passed by the Settlement Commission on 17/08/2016 therefore the case shall not be barred by limitation before16//08/2017, i.e. one year from the date of order of the Settlement Commission not providing

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

reassessment or re-computation shall be one year from the date of receipt of order of passed by the Settlement Commission. Since the order u/s 245D(4) was passed by the Settlement Commission on 17/08/2016 therefore the case shall not be barred by limitation before16//08/2017, i.e. one year from the date of order of the Settlement Commission not providing

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

reassessment or re-computation shall be one year from the date of receipt of order of passed by the Settlement Commission. Since the order u/s 245D(4) was passed by the Settlement Commission on 17/08/2016 therefore the case shall not be barred by limitation before16//08/2017, i.e. one year from the date of order of the Settlement Commission not providing