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

13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by virtue of providing reservation of 2% and discount of 10% for the employees of the appellant in respect of allotment of residential land and commercial properties, he was of the opinion that the Allahabad Development Authority was not entitled for exemption under section 11 of the Income

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

13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by virtue of providing reservation of 2% and discount of 10% for the employees of the appellant in respect of allotment of residential land and commercial properties, he was of the opinion that the Allahabad Development Authority was not entitled for exemption under section 11 of the Income

ACIT,ALLAHABAD vs. M/S SUNSINE INFRASTATE PVT TTD, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner Of Sunshine Infraestate Income-Tax, Central Circle, V. Private Limited Allahabad, U.P. 17, Industrial Area, Naini, Allahabad, U.P. Pan: Aancs9247H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 22/Alld/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.103/Alld/2017) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sunshine Infraestate Private Limited The Assistant 17, Industrial Area, Naini, V. Commissioner Of Allahabad, U.P. Income-Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad, U.P. Pan: Aancs9247H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 68 of the 1961 Act. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that no evidences 13 P a g e | 14 ITA No. 103/Alld/2017

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

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Gift) - Assessment year 200910 - Assesses claimed to have received gift from his NRI brother - Assessing Officer treated it as assessee’s undisclosed income on ground that same was not real and Genuine - assessee's brother, apart from furnishing his employment particulars, confirmed gift that he had made - Details

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 1961 Act. Even, statement of fact has not been filed before the tribunal, although it is stated to have been filed in Form No. 36. Thus, in these circumstances, adverse view is to be 13

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

13(7) of the Act. The Commissioner was also of the view that the Assessing Officer failed to make proper enquiry to ascertain the possible nexus between the society and the donors which attracted the provisions of section 68

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 69 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 70 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 71 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 72 (J.1.1.1) SLPs filed by Revenue against aforesaid

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 69 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 70 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 71 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 72 (J.1.1.1) SLPs filed by Revenue against aforesaid

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 69 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 70 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 71 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 72 (J.1.1.1) SLPs filed by Revenue against aforesaid

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 69 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 70 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 71 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 72 (J.1.1.1) SLPs filed by Revenue against aforesaid

NEERAJ AGRAWAL,,MIRZAPUR vs. DCIT, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 131(1) to all the sundry creditors . In case where the summons under Section 131(1) returned unserved , the assessee was not informed by AO about the same and the reasons were not communicated to the assessee. It was submitted that it is only after the assessment order was passed, the assessee came to know about

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 131(1) to all the sundry creditors . In case where the summons under Section 131(1) returned unserved , the assessee was not informed by AO about the same and the reasons were not communicated to the assessee. It was submitted that it is only after the assessment order was passed, the assessee came to know about

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.

13. The final issue is with regard to the charging of a sum of Rs. 3,96,606/- to tax under the provisions of section 68

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

SHRI MAHAVEER CHARITABLE TRUST ,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Shri Mahaveer Charitable Trust, Vs Income Tax Officer 46, Rajendra Nagar, Baluaghat, (Exemption), Allahabad Allahabad-211003, U.P. Pan: Aahts9123K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal & Sh. Ajit Kumar, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2025 Date Of 14.10.2025 Pronouncement: O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit, Nfac Dated 28.09.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Orders Of The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Allahabad Dated 30.03.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 28.09.2024 Affirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,97,69,650/- On Account Of Donation Received & Rejection Of The Submissions Of The Appellant That Appeal Proceedings Pending Against The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Dated 30.03.2016 Are Infructuous Is Absolutely Illegal & Against The Principles Of Law. 2. Because The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Cit V. Alagendran Finance Ltd. [27.07.2007] Had Observed That When An Order Of Assessment Is Reopened, The Previous Assessment Will Be Held To Be Set Aside & The Whole Proceedings Would Start Afresh & In The Case In Hands The Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2016 Has Been Set-Aside By The Then Incumbent Ld. Cit(E); That Is To Say That No Assessment Existed On The Date When Order Dated 28.02.2018 Under Section 263 Of The Act Was Passed By The Then Incumbent Cit(E). 3. Because Section 263 Of The Act Grants Power To The Jurisdictional Commissioner To Direct For Revision Of Orders & Reads As Under (Relevant Statute Quoted):

13(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Furthermore, the ld. CIT (Exemption) had been of the opinion that the AO had failed to make proper enquiries to ascertain the possible nexus between the society and its donors, which could attract the provisions of section 68

SANKAR LAL JAISWAL,,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: SH. SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

68,000/- are incorrect and contrary to the actual facts of the case. 6. That in any view of the matter the assessee reserves his right to take any further ground of appeal before hearing of the appeal.” 2. It is seen from the memo of appeal that the appeal is delayed by over a year. The assessee has filed

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

KAILASH JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT(C.C.), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria, Ju Dicial Member

section 132 of the Act are dumb documents because no meaningful inference can be derived from them with full certainty. He further submitted that some of the papers, based on which additions have been made, are already reflected in the assessee’s books of account, therefore, they are neither incriminating nor undisclosed. Moreover, the learned A.R. for the assessee