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

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

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

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

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

SHERVANI SUGAR SYNDICATE LIMITED,C/O B. K. KAPUR CO. vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. National Faceless Limited Assessment Centre 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad- Delhi. 201001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. Dc/Acit-2, Allahabad Limited Office Of The Assistant C/O 17, Navyug Market, Commissioner Of Income Ghaziabad-201001. Tax, Allahabad, Allahabad-211001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Madhav Kapur Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

reassessment proceedings void ab inito. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making the addition to the tune of Rs. 60,90,164/- other sources vide his order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated 16.12.2019 which is in violation to provisions

SHERVANI SUGAR SYNDICATE LIMITED,GHAZIABAD vs. DC/ACIT-2, ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. National Faceless Limited Assessment Centre 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad- Delhi. 201001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. Dc/Acit-2, Allahabad Limited Office Of The Assistant C/O 17, Navyug Market, Commissioner Of Income Ghaziabad-201001. Tax, Allahabad, Allahabad-211001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Madhav Kapur Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

reassessment proceedings void ab inito. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making the addition to the tune of Rs. 60,90,164/- other sources vide his order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated 16.12.2019 which is in violation to provisions

DEEPAK AUTO SALES KUNDA PRATAPGARH,PRATAPGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER PRATAPGARH, PRATAPGARH

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

147 of the Act was initiated by issue of notice 148 of the Act dated 20.03.2023 on the allegation that the assessee has I.T.A. No.69/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2019-20 3 deposited cash in current account with PNB A/C No 6743002100000915 to the tune of Rs.2,34,98,000/-which remains unexplained. The said information as gathered by the department