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

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

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

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

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

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

3) of section 143 or section 147 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no notice shall be issued under section 148 by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer that it is a fit case

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

147 of the 1961 Act. During the course of appellate proceedings before ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that since the reassessment order was passed by the AO based on the details furnished by the assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings , the AO was not justified in framing assessment u/s

MADHURENDRA NATH,ALLAHABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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

reassessment. However, in view of the fact that section 153A contains non-obstante clause qua section 147, the consequential requirement of issuing notice u/s 143(2) before making assessment u/s 147, also gets obliterated in an assessment u/s 153A. Moreover, section 153A directly empowers the AO to take up the assessment without acquiring any separate jurisdiction

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

reassessment. However, in view of the fact that section 153A contains non-obstante clause qua section 147, the consequential requirement of issuing notice u/s 143(2) before making assessment u/s 147, also gets obliterated in an assessment u/s 153A. Moreover, section 153A directly empowers the AO to take up the assessment without acquiring any separate jurisdiction

M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both appeals i

reassessment proceeding imperssible and liable to be withdrawn. 4. That in any view of the matter declared receipt were received were from government department through cheque supported by form no. 16A and accepted by AO in original assessment hence action of the assessing officer under the proceeding u/s 148 of the IT Act. is not correct. 5. That

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both appeals i

reassessment proceeding imperssible and liable to be withdrawn. 4. That in any view of the matter declared receipt were received were from government department through cheque supported by form no. 16A and accepted by AO in original assessment hence action of the assessing officer under the proceeding u/s 148 of the IT Act. is not correct. 5. That

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

DR. AROTI GHOSH,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2008-09

section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that, the appellant has not accepted the assessment order and filed an appeal against the order sought to be rectified, therefore he cannot ask for rectification of assessment order, hence the AO has rightly dismissed the rectification request. 2. BECAUSE the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed