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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

234B, & 234C of the Act. I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 5 6. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in initiating the penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

234B, & 234C of the Act. I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 5 6. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in initiating the penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1

SHRI BACHANU RAM,,MIRZAPUR vs. ITO,, MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee with tribunal in ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Sri Bachanu Ram, V. Ito, Range – Iii(1), Mirzapur, Saketpuri Colony, Sabri, U.P. Mirzapur,U.P. Pan: Beqps 3977 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 by issue of notice u/s 148 is not a judicious act on the part of department hence the entire action is bad in law. 4. That in any view of the matter in compliance to notice u/s 148 no return was filed but return filed subsequently in compliance to notice u/s 142(1) hence the mandatory requirement of service