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)

11 ITA No. 103/Alld/2017 and C.O.No. 22/Alld/2017 (arising out of ITA No. 103/Alld/2017) Assessment Year 2011-12 Sunshine Infraestate Private Limited,Allahabad conducted by Revenue. It was submitted that notice was issued to the assessee by AO u/s 153A , on 05.09.2014 , requiring assessee to file return of income , but the assessee filed return of income in pursuance to notice u/s

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

11,37,000/-“ 5. Aggrieved by reassessment order dated 22.11.2017 passed by AO u/s 147 read with Section 144 of the 1961 Act, the assessee filed first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) . During the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had filed all necessary details before the AO during the course

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant on the very validity of the proceedings that has been invoked under section 147 of the Act against the appellant by observing "Since the appeal is decided on merits, hence these grounds are not adjudicated." 2. BECAUSE

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

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

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

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