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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

45 of 79 Rs.88,000/-. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are partly allowed." by the CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order, he has completely erred in restricting the relief to 50% only and sustaining the addition of Rs.88,000/-without any valid reason. 4. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely ignored and overlooked the facts

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

45 of 79 Rs.88,000/-. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are partly allowed." by the CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order, he has completely erred in restricting the relief to 50% only and sustaining the addition of Rs.88,000/-without any valid reason. 4. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely ignored and overlooked the facts

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

45 of 79 Rs.88,000/-. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are partly allowed." by the CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order, he has completely erred in restricting the relief to 50% only and sustaining the addition of Rs.88,000/-without any valid reason. 4. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely ignored and overlooked the facts

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

45 of 79 Rs.88,000/-. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are partly allowed." by the CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order, he has completely erred in restricting the relief to 50% only and sustaining the addition of Rs.88,000/-without any valid reason. 4. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely ignored and overlooked the facts

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

45 of 79 Rs.88,000/-. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are partly allowed." by the CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order, he has completely erred in restricting the relief to 50% only and sustaining the addition of Rs.88,000/-without any valid reason. 4. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely ignored and overlooked the facts

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

45 of 79 Rs.88,000/-. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are partly allowed." by the CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order, he has completely erred in restricting the relief to 50% only and sustaining the addition of Rs.88,000/-without any valid reason. 4. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely ignored and overlooked the facts

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

45 of 79 Rs.88,000/-. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are partly allowed." by the CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order, he has completely erred in restricting the relief to 50% only and sustaining the addition of Rs.88,000/-without any valid reason. 4. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely ignored and overlooked the facts

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

45 of 79 Rs.88,000/-. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are partly allowed." by the CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order, he has completely erred in restricting the relief to 50% only and sustaining the addition of Rs.88,000/-without any valid reason. 4. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely ignored and overlooked the facts

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

45 of 79 Rs.88,000/-. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are partly allowed." by the CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order, he has completely erred in restricting the relief to 50% only and sustaining the addition of Rs.88,000/-without any valid reason. 4. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely ignored and overlooked the facts

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

45 Nos. 76 – 81/CTK/2022) in which grounds raised by the assessee against validity of approval granted u/s 153D of the I.T. Act were dismissed. (H.1) Learned Departmental Representatives also submitted that procedural irregularity was not fatal if jurisdictional issue was established. Further, learned Departmental Representatives submitted that fiscal acts should be interpreted in a way which enables functioning

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

45 Nos. 76 – 81/CTK/2022) in which grounds raised by the assessee against validity of approval granted u/s 153D of the I.T. Act were dismissed. (H.1) Learned Departmental Representatives also submitted that procedural irregularity was not fatal if jurisdictional issue was established. Further, learned Departmental Representatives submitted that fiscal acts should be interpreted in a way which enables functioning

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

45 Nos. 76 – 81/CTK/2022) in which grounds raised by the assessee against validity of approval granted u/s 153D of the I.T. Act were dismissed. (H.1) Learned Departmental Representatives also submitted that procedural irregularity was not fatal if jurisdictional issue was established. Further, learned Departmental Representatives submitted that fiscal acts should be interpreted in a way which enables functioning