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)

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 of the 1961 Act is erroneous so far as is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue within provisions of Section 263 of the 1961 Act, by holding as under: “3. I have considered the assessment proceeding of the Assessing

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

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

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

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

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

4) and the order has been time barred. Section 153 is explaining of the exclusion clause and if the notwithstanding as argued by the appellant may be accepted then whole section 153 may become redundant. (iii) The appellant has tried to submit before the Bench to persuade that section 148 and 153 are perimaterial'. But the fact of the matter

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

4) and the order has been time barred. Section 153 is explaining of the exclusion clause and if the notwithstanding as argued by the appellant may be accepted then whole section 153 may become redundant. (iii) The appellant has tried to submit before the Bench to persuade that section 148 and 153 are perimaterial'. But the fact of the matter

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

4) and the order has been time barred. Section 153 is explaining of the exclusion clause and if the notwithstanding as argued by the appellant may be accepted then whole section 153 may become redundant. (iii) The appellant has tried to submit before the Bench to persuade that section 148 and 153 are perimaterial'. But the fact of the matter

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

4) and the order has been time barred. Section 153 is explaining of the exclusion clause and if the notwithstanding as argued by the appellant may be accepted then whole section 153 may become redundant. (iii) The appellant has tried to submit before the Bench to persuade that section 148 and 153 are perimaterial'. But the fact of the matter

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

4) and the order has been time barred. Section 153 is explaining of the exclusion clause and if the notwithstanding as argued by the appellant may be accepted then whole section 153 may become redundant. (iii) The appellant has tried to submit before the Bench to persuade that section 148 and 153 are perimaterial'. But the fact of the matter

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

4) and the order has been time barred. Section 153 is explaining of the exclusion clause and if the notwithstanding as argued by the appellant may be accepted then whole section 153 may become redundant. (iii) The appellant has tried to submit before the Bench to persuade that section 148 and 153 are perimaterial'. But the fact of the matter

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

4) and the order has been time barred. Section 153 is explaining of the exclusion clause and if the notwithstanding as argued by the appellant may be accepted then whole section 153 may become redundant. (iii) The appellant has tried to submit before the Bench to persuade that section 148 and 153 are perimaterial'. But the fact of the matter