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

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

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)

B. Kubendran v. DCIT, Chennai, reported in (2021) 126 taxmann.com 107(Mad. HC) to contend that Hon’ble Madras High Court distinguished the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 188 Taxman 113/321 ITR 362(SC) and held that no notice u/s 143(2) is required while framing assessment u/s 153A

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

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

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

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

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

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. 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 (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

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

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

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