SMT. NEETA NATH L/H OF LATE DR. JITENDRA NATH,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Smt. Neeta Nath, L/H Of Lt. Dr. Jitendra Nath Income Tax, Central Circle, Civil Lines, Allahabad B/401, Mayan Enclave, 49/13, Clive Road, Allahabad Pan-Abepn1795Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhurendra Nath, Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-502, Vinayak Le Grande, Income Tax, Central Circle, 16/12, Lal Bahadur Shastri Civil Lines, Allahabad Road, Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aaipn8161D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, Adv Respondent By: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2023 O R D E R Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M.: These Two Appeals By The Two Related Assessees Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 28.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. These Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 153C In Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Action Under Section 132(1) Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 05.12.2013 In The Case Of Shri. Hemant Kumar Sindhi. Therefore, The Facts & Circumstances As Well As The Grounds Of Appeal

u/s 143(2) as a pre-condition for making assessment or reassessment. However, in view of the fact that section 153A contains non-obstante clause qua section 147

SANJAY MAJUMDAR,ALLAHABAD vs. PR. CIT, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Sanjay Majumdar, V. The Principal Commissioner Type Ii – 112, Devprayagam Of Income Tax, Sangam Vatika – Jhalwa, Aayakar Bhawan, Allahabad 211012 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad 211001 Pan: Adopm 2688P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act, dated 24.06.2016. 4.2 The ld. Pr. CIT after considering contentions of the assessee held that reassessment order dated 24.06.2016 passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) 4 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sanjay Majumdar r.w.s. 147

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

ARIES MARKETERS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2007-08

reassessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2015 whereby the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.40,84,900/-. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) and also challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment for want of necessary sanction/satisfaction of Pr. CCIT/CCIT/PCIT/CIT

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

143(2) of the 1961 Act, for compliance for 25.1.2016. The AO also issued notices u/s 142(1) of the 1961 Act. The assessee initially participated in the reassessment proceedings, and filed written submissions along with acknowledgment of return of income, Balance Sheet, ledger Account, Bank Statement, Computation of income, Form 3CB and Form 3CD etc. which are placed

SHOBHA RASTOGI,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Shobha Rastogi, V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 30-A, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Tax, Circle-1, Allahabad, U.P. Allahabad, U.P. Pan-Afqpr4774R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.2021

reassessment framed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 143(2) on 29.06.2010 which is beyond the limitation and therefore the re-assessment framed by the Assessing Officer is invalid and liable

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer is illegal & bad in law as the same is passed without valid statutory approval in terms of Section 153D of the Act as the same was granted mechanically and without any application of mind. 3. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer is illegal & bad in law as the same is passed without valid statutory approval in terms of Section 153D of the Act as the same was granted mechanically and without any application of mind. 3. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case