MADHU DUBEY,ALLAHABAD vs. DC/AC-1(1),ALLAHABAD, MG MARG ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 Madhu Dubey V. Dc/Ac-1(1) 657A/1, Jamuna Nagar, Chak Mg Marg, Allahabad- Raghunath, Naini-211008. 211001. Pan:Asipd8489J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

5) Dismissed — as and proof/evidence/documentation was provided regarding sources from which the amount was taken to capital account. 6) Dismissed — As no contrary evidence to conclusion as reached by Ld.JAO has been bought on record even in appeal proceedings. Onus in section 68 was on Appellant to prove the genuineness of transaction. it has failed

RAJESH KUMAR JAISWAL,,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY/ACIT(CENTRAL), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: the query raised by the assessing authority vide questionnaire issued under section 142 (1) dated 23.01.2021, in assessment proceedings for the AY 2018-19.

5. Because the learned AO as well as CIT(A) were not legally justified in making the addition of Rs.1.85 crores as unexplained investment for the purchase of property, under section 69 and charging the same to the penal rate of tax under section 115 BBE of the Act. 6. Because the appellant was not given any opportunity

GHAUS MEMORIAL SAHKARI AWAS SAMITI LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT RANGE-2, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 68 of the I.T. Act since this was the amount of deposit received during the year by the assessee. Against this order of the CIT(A), Allahabad enhancing the income, the appellant filed appeal before Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench against the addition of Rs. 64,62,054/-. In ITA No. 220(Alld)/2006 dated

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

68,20,842/- for Grants and Funds received. (5) Because the order of the CIT(A) is generally bad both on facts and in law. AYs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 (6) Because the assessee reserves the right to rescind or add or delete any ground of appeal.” 6. Since assessment year 2014-15 is the first assessment year

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

68,20,842/- for Grants and Funds received. (5) Because the order of the CIT(A) is generally bad both on facts and in law. AYs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 (6) Because the assessee reserves the right to rescind or add or delete any ground of appeal.” 6. Since assessment year 2014-15 is the first assessment year

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

68,20,842/- for Grants and Funds received. (5) Because the order of the CIT(A) is generally bad both on facts and in law. AYs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 (6) Because the assessee reserves the right to rescind or add or delete any ground of appeal.” 6. Since assessment year 2014-15 is the first assessment year

DINESH KUMAR SINGH,MIRZAPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

68 dealing with cash credits , compliances of Section 69, 69A, 69B , 69C of the 1961 Act dealing with unexplained investments, unexplained money, unexplained expenditure etc. , deducting of income-tax at source on payments made by tax-payers(Chapter XVII-B), prohibition on making payment otherwise than through prescribed banking modes beyond threshold limits(Section 40A(3) ), dealing

NEERAJ AGRAWAL,,MIRZAPUR vs. DCIT, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

5,87,424/- on account of difference in the Cash Book without appreciating the finding of Assessing Officer. Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mr. Neeraj Agrwal, Mirzapur, U.P. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A), Allahabad has erred on facts and in law in deleting Rs. 10,15,000/- which has been added by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed cash

DCIT CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. SHRI NEERAJ AGRAWAL, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

5,87,424/- on account of difference in the Cash Book without appreciating the finding of Assessing Officer. Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mr. Neeraj Agrwal, Mirzapur, U.P. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A), Allahabad has erred on facts and in law in deleting Rs. 10,15,000/- which has been added by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed cash

SHRI MAHAVEER CHARITABLE TRUST,ALLAHABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Mahaveer Charitable V. Commissioner Of Income Tax Trust (Exemption), Lucknow 46, Rajendra Nagar Balua Ghat, Allahabad Tan/Pan: Aahts9123K (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Pawan Jaiswal, C.A. Respondent By: Mr. Shantanu Dhamija, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2021 O R D E R

10,85,350) e) Amount treated as income liable for taxation 1,97,69,650 merely the CIT(E) is of different view, proceedings as also order under section 263 of the Act could not have been passed against the appellant. 5. Because the alleged observation made by the CIT(E) in the impugned order dated 28.02.2018 that

VIPIN GUPTA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Vipin Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Lal Bihara, G.T. Road, Bamrauli, Ward-2(3), Allahabad Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Anapg6886D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 16.05.2024. The Appeal Was Originally Filed Before The Ld. Cit(A), Allahabad & Was Subsequently Migrated To The National Faceless Appeal Centre. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing Appeal In Limine Without Affording Adequate & Effective Opportunity Of Being Head. 2. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining Addition Of Rs. 5,68,500/- Made On Account Of Initial Capital Introduced To Start New Business By Invoking The Provision Of Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Unexplained Credit.

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. BECAUSE the appellant has discharged his primary onus to establish the identity of the depositors, their credit worthiness as well the genuineness of the transaction by furnishing their identity proof, assessment particulars, bank account statement and their confirmation. 6. BECAUSE the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

5 6. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in initiating the penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.129/Alld/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

5 6. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in initiating the penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.129/Alld/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

5 6. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in initiating the penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.129/Alld/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

5 6. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in initiating the penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.129/Alld/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years

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

Section 36(1). By virtue of the Explanation below subclause (va), no deduction could be claimed if the contribution has not been paid, after collection from the employees by way of deduction from their salaries, within the due date under the EPF&MP Act. The deletion of a proviso under Section 43B cannot render otiose the Explanation under

M/S B.M.GUPTA & SONS,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. B. M. Gupta & Sons (Huf) V. Dcit Range-1 64 Balrampur House, Allahabad- Income Tax Office, 38 M. 211002. G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh- 211001. Tan/Pan: Aachb2800B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Asit Hajela, Ca Respondent By: Shri A.K. Singh, Cit ( Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2021 O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao:

section 68 in respect of 15 persons but learned CIT. (A) allowed in favour of Assesses in respect of last 5 items as per list his order on page 1 and 2. The Assesses is in appeal in respect of 10

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING (P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT (OSD), ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 40(a) (ia) as invoked is not correct as the said provision is not applicable at all hence the action of two lower authorities are incorrect. 3. That in any view of the matter the nature of expenditure is marketing expenses incurred by the assessee company is towards reimbursement of payment made by distributors appointed by the company