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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

35 (F.1.1) The learned Counsel for the assessee challenged the validity of approval granted u/s 153D of the Act on many grounds. To begin with, he contended that the approvals were given without due application of mind. In this regard he drew our attention to the fact that the draft assessment orders were sent to the JCIT by the Assessing

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

35 (F.1.1) The learned Counsel for the assessee challenged the validity of approval granted u/s 153D of the Act on many grounds. To begin with, he contended that the approvals were given without due application of mind. In this regard he drew our attention to the fact that the draft assessment orders were sent to the JCIT by the Assessing

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

35 (F.1.1) The learned Counsel for the assessee challenged the validity of approval granted u/s 153D of the Act on many grounds. To begin with, he contended that the approvals were given without due application of mind. In this regard he drew our attention to the fact that the draft assessment orders were sent to the JCIT by the Assessing

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

35 (F.1.1) The learned Counsel for the assessee challenged the validity of approval granted u/s 153D of the Act on many grounds. To begin with, he contended that the approvals were given without due application of mind. In this regard he drew our attention to the fact that the draft assessment orders were sent to the JCIT by the Assessing

SHYAM BABU KESARWANI,KAUSHAMBI vs. ITO WARD- 2 (5), KAUSHAMBI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Shyam Babu Kesarwani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tilhapur Mor, Kaushambi Ward-2(5), Kaushambi Pan:Bgepk4506N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Act Passed On 22.12.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:- “1. That In Any View Of The Matter Assessment Made U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act By Order Dated 31.10.2019 On Income Of Rs.28,27,870/- Is Bad Both On The Fact & In Law. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter Proceeding As Initiated U/S 147 Is Not Valid Proceeding In The Eyes Of Law Since No Material Was Brought On Record That Assessee Has Concealed Any Income & The Issue Again Taken Up In The Reassessment Proceeding Which Was Already Before The Assessing Officer At The Time Of Original Assessment & After Due Application Of Mind The Then Assessing Officer Passed Speaking Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Hence Simply On Change Of Opinion The Reassessment Proceeding U/S 147 Of The Act As Initiated Are Bad In Law. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter The Addition Of Rs.25,25,415/- As Made By The Assessing Officer By Passing Ex-Parte Order On Account Of Excess Deposit In Bank Considered As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act Is Highly Unjustified & His Action As Confirmed By Cit(A) Is Highly Unjustified.

section 250 of the Act passed on 22.12.2023. The grounds of appeal preferred are as under:- “1. That in any view of the matter assessment made u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by order dated 31.10.2019 on income of Rs.28,27,870/- is bad both on the fact and in law. 2. That in any view

M/S UDVASIT BEROJGAR SAHAKARI SHRAM SAMVIDA SAMITI LTD.,,SONBHADRA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19

reassessment was unjustified - S.R. Batliboi & Co. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 54, Kolkata - [2018] 100 taxmann.com 328 (Calcutta).” 3 3. The main thrust of the written submissions filed by the assessee is that the amended provisions of section 36(1) (va) as well as section 43B vide Finance Bill, 2021 is applicable only with effect from assessment year