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

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

ANOOP SINGH,KAUSHAMBI vs. ITO,, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2005-06 Anoop Singh V. Income Tax Officer Ahuja Bazar Allahabad Kaushambi Tan/Pan:Aqkps6453R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S. K. Jaiswal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 11 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 11 2019 O R D E R

68 has been deleted by Hon'ble ITAT to the extent of Rs.2,15,000/- and additions to the extent of Rs.8,00,000/- has been set aside to the file of assessing officer. ITA No.81/ALLD/2018 Page 2 of 4 3. BECAUSE the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that appellant has explained the source

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

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 2021-22 onwards and not for the year under consideration. 4. On the other

SHRI NEERAJ MAHESHWARI,SONEBHADRA vs. DY. CIT, (CPC), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Before Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Neeraj Maheshwari, V. Shri Amrit Raj Singh, Bijpur Rihand Nagar, Sonebhadra- Dy. Commissioner Of Inco Tax, 2312233, U.P. Cpc Bangalore Pan- Afvpm5660E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. A.K. Pandey, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022 O R D E R

100 taxmann.com (Madras). 5. Having considered the rival submissions and careful perusal of the orders of the authorities below, we note that though there is a delay in payment of employees’ contribution towards PF & ESI as per the limitation prescribed under the Specific Acts however, the payment was made before the due date of 2 Neeraj Maheshwari filing

COMMERCIAL AUTO SALES PVT. LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

100(Guj. HC) 9 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Commercial Auto Sales Private Limited, Allahabad v) CIT v. Merchem Limited (2015) 61 taxmann.com 119(Ker.) vi) B S Patel v. DCIT , (2010) 326 ITR 457(MP) vii) Popular Vehicles & Services Private Limited v. CIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 13(Ker.) g) It is claimed by ld. Sr. DR that despite the above

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

100% Central Government owned PSU so the question of disallowance under the Provident Fund Act does not arise in our case.” 8.2 The learned CIT(A) was pleased to allow the appeal of the assessee by holding as under.:- “ This issue is no more res-integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court

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

100% Central Government owned PSU so the question of disallowance under the Provident Fund Act does not arise in our case.” 8.2 The learned CIT(A) was pleased to allow the appeal of the assessee by holding as under.:- “ This issue is no more res-integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court

ACIT,, ALLAHABAD vs. KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 145(3) of the act and once the said provision for rejection of account was not invoked then the addition made is unwarranted because for rejection of account invoking of provision of section 145(3) is a mandatory requirement. In this regard there are various decisions in support of the assessee including the decision of apex court

M/S KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 145(3) of the act and once the said provision for rejection of account was not invoked then the addition made is unwarranted because for rejection of account invoking of provision of section 145(3) is a mandatory requirement. In this regard there are various decisions in support of the assessee including the decision of apex court

RAMJI VAISH,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, (CC), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

100/- as partly maintained as per para 28 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) order ignoring the correct facts is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 5. That in any view of the matter the addition so made and partly maintained

RAMJI VAISH,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT(CC), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

100/- as partly maintained as per para 28 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) order ignoring the correct facts is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 5. That in any view of the matter the addition so made and partly maintained

M/S JAI MAA SHARDA SERVICE STATION,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

100/- as partly maintained as per para 28 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) order ignoring the correct facts is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 5. That in any view of the matter the addition so made and partly maintained

VIJAY STONE PRODUCT,SONEBHADRA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

100/- as partly maintained as per para 28 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) order ignoring the correct facts is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 5. That in any view of the matter the addition so made and partly maintained

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD vs. VIJAY STONE PRODUCTS, SONEBHADRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

100/- as partly maintained as per para 28 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) order ignoring the correct facts is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 5. That in any view of the matter the addition so made and partly maintained

VIJAY STONE PRODUCT,SONEBHADRA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

100/- as partly maintained as per para 28 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) order ignoring the correct facts is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 5. That in any view of the matter the addition so made and partly maintained

VIJAY STONE PRODUCT,SONEBHADRA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

100/- as partly maintained as per para 28 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) order ignoring the correct facts is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 5. That in any view of the matter the addition so made and partly maintained

RAMJI VAISH,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT(CC), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

100/- as partly maintained as per para 28 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) order ignoring the correct facts is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 5. That in any view of the matter the addition so made and partly maintained