M/S. SUBHASH STONE INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NAINITAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

68 of the 1961 Act , and hence income assessed by the AO was to the tune of Rs. 78,82,390/-, vide assessment order dated 31.03.2013 passed by the AO u/s 153A read with Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act, as against the returned income of Rs.30,24,550/- 5. The assessee being aggrieved by assessment order dated

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 153A have been framed by ACIT, Central Circle, New Delhi, therefore, prior approval of the JCIT in respect of each assessment year referred to under section 153A or 153B shall have to be obtained. Thus, no order of assessment or re-assessment shall be passed by the A.O. in the present cases in respect of each assessment years under

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 153A have been framed by ACIT, Central Circle, New Delhi, therefore, prior approval of the JCIT in respect of each assessment year referred to under section 153A or 153B shall have to be obtained. Thus, no order of assessment or re-assessment shall be passed by the A.O. in the present cases in respect of each assessment years under

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 153A have been framed by ACIT, Central Circle, New Delhi, therefore, prior approval of the JCIT in respect of each assessment year referred to under section 153A or 153B shall have to be obtained. Thus, no order of assessment or re-assessment shall be passed by the A.O. in the present cases in respect of each assessment years under

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 153A have been framed by ACIT, Central Circle, New Delhi, therefore, prior approval of the JCIT in respect of each assessment year referred to under section 153A or 153B shall have to be obtained. Thus, no order of assessment or re-assessment shall be passed by the A.O. in the present cases in respect of each assessment years under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. M/S. J.P.YADAV , SONEBHADRA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 147 of the 1961 Act, which is a best judgment reassessment order passed by the AO. Our attention was drawn by ld. Sr. DR to page number 46, 59 , 63 and 68

DCIT, CIRCLE-II , ALLAHABAD vs. BHARAT PUMPS & COMPRESSORS LTD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

reassessment order dated 31.12.2009. 8. Aggrieved by re-assessment framed by the AO , the assessee filed first appeal before learned CIT(A) and submitted as under.:- “The Ld. A.R. for the appellant has submitted as under- “As per clause (1) of Paragraph 38 of Employee’s Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, Employee’s contribution deducted is to be deposited together with

DCIT, CIRCLE-II , ALLAHABAD vs. BHARAT PUMPS & COMPRESSORS LTD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

reassessment order dated 31.12.2009. 8. Aggrieved by re-assessment framed by the AO , the assessee filed first appeal before learned CIT(A) and submitted as under.:- “The Ld. A.R. for the appellant has submitted as under- “As per clause (1) of Paragraph 38 of Employee’s Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, Employee’s contribution deducted is to be deposited together with

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

HARAKH CHAND GLASS PVT. LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2008-09 Harakh Chand Glass Pvt. Ltd. V. Dy. Cit 77, Subhash Marg Circle 2 Johnstonganj, Allahabad Allahabad Tan/Pan:Aacch0049M (Appellant) (Respondent) S.A. No.01/Alld/2019 [In Ita No.60/Alld/2019] Assessment Year: 2008-09 Harakh Chand Glass Pvt. Ltd. V. Dy. Cit 77, Subhash Marg Circle 2 Johnstonganj, Allahabad Allahabad Tan/Pan:Aacch0049M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate Department By: Shri S. K. Madhuk, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13 02 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 02 2020 O R D E R

reassessment order is less than one month which is impermissible in law as held by various courts. 3. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, re-opening of Assessment is bad in law since the alleged notice U/s 148 was not issued with limitation and it is submitted with deep anguish and regret that Revenue

KESARWANI & C0.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT., ALLAHABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

KESARWANI & CO.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

KESARWANI & C0,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

SWATANTRA MISHRA,GEORGE TOWN, ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Swatantra Mishra, Income Tax Officer, F-6 Tulsiani Enclave, Lowther Road, V. Ward-1(5), Allahabad George Town, Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Axvpm0471B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: None (Application) Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.09.2023 O R D E R

68,300/- to the income of the assessee. Further, addition was made by the AO with respect to bank interest of Rs. 65,908/- , and also unexplained investment in Axis Bank Mutual Fund of Rs. 10,00,000/-, were added by AO to the income of the assessee, vide reassessment order dated 21.12.2018 passed

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

68 of 79 evidence or material in his possession, and rather he has admitted that he has no other information other than bank statements and, therefore, there was no propriety on the part of AO to make disallowance of expenditure without pointing out any specific instances. 13.9 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that alternatively, the assessee may be allowed

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

68 of 79 evidence or material in his possession, and rather he has admitted that he has no other information other than bank statements and, therefore, there was no propriety on the part of AO to make disallowance of expenditure without pointing out any specific instances. 13.9 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that alternatively, the assessee may be allowed

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

68 of 79 evidence or material in his possession, and rather he has admitted that he has no other information other than bank statements and, therefore, there was no propriety on the part of AO to make disallowance of expenditure without pointing out any specific instances. 13.9 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that alternatively, the assessee may be allowed

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

68 of 79 evidence or material in his possession, and rather he has admitted that he has no other information other than bank statements and, therefore, there was no propriety on the part of AO to make disallowance of expenditure without pointing out any specific instances. 13.9 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that alternatively, the assessee may be allowed

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

68 of 79 evidence or material in his possession, and rather he has admitted that he has no other information other than bank statements and, therefore, there was no propriety on the part of AO to make disallowance of expenditure without pointing out any specific instances. 13.9 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that alternatively, the assessee may be allowed