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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

47 of 79 As there being no change in facts and circumstance of the case, following the rule of consistency, addition sustained by the CIT(A) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer is wholly erroneous and unjustified. 7. BECAUSE the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

47 of 79 As there being no change in facts and circumstance of the case, following the rule of consistency, addition sustained by the CIT(A) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer is wholly erroneous and unjustified. 7. BECAUSE the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

47 of 79 As there being no change in facts and circumstance of the case, following the rule of consistency, addition sustained by the CIT(A) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer is wholly erroneous and unjustified. 7. BECAUSE the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

47 of 79 As there being no change in facts and circumstance of the case, following the rule of consistency, addition sustained by the CIT(A) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer is wholly erroneous and unjustified. 7. BECAUSE the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

47 of 79 As there being no change in facts and circumstance of the case, following the rule of consistency, addition sustained by the CIT(A) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer is wholly erroneous and unjustified. 7. BECAUSE the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

47 of 79 As there being no change in facts and circumstance of the case, following the rule of consistency, addition sustained by the CIT(A) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer is wholly erroneous and unjustified. 7. BECAUSE the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

47 of 79 As there being no change in facts and circumstance of the case, following the rule of consistency, addition sustained by the CIT(A) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer is wholly erroneous and unjustified. 7. BECAUSE the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

47 of 79 As there being no change in facts and circumstance of the case, following the rule of consistency, addition sustained by the CIT(A) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer is wholly erroneous and unjustified. 7. BECAUSE the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

47 reflected in the final approval given vide aforesaid common approval letter dated 31/07/2017 by the next incumbent in the office of JCIT who succeeded him. In view of the submissions made, Learned Departmental Representatives pleaded that the validity of approval given u/s 153D of the Act by the JCIT should be upheld. In their alternate submissions, Learned Departmental Representatives

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

47 reflected in the final approval given vide aforesaid common approval letter dated 31/07/2017 by the next incumbent in the office of JCIT who succeeded him. In view of the submissions made, Learned Departmental Representatives pleaded that the validity of approval given u/s 153D of the Act by the JCIT should be upheld. In their alternate submissions, Learned Departmental Representatives

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

47 reflected in the final approval given vide aforesaid common approval letter dated 31/07/2017 by the next incumbent in the office of JCIT who succeeded him. In view of the submissions made, Learned Departmental Representatives pleaded that the validity of approval given u/s 153D of the Act by the JCIT should be upheld. In their alternate submissions, Learned Departmental Representatives

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

47 reflected in the final approval given vide aforesaid common approval letter dated 31/07/2017 by the next incumbent in the office of JCIT who succeeded him. In view of the submissions made, Learned Departmental Representatives pleaded that the validity of approval given u/s 153D of the Act by the JCIT should be upheld. In their alternate submissions, Learned Departmental Representatives