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

M/S. GOVIND STONE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HAMIRPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -5(4), BANDA

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

3) of the 1961 Act by the AO . It is pertinent to mention that the AO made addition to the tune of Rs. 1,10,00,700/- u/s 56(2)(viib) as well addition of Rs. 1,51,20,000/- u/s 68 read with Section 115BBE, aggregating to Rs. 2,61,20,700/- by following literal interpretation of Section

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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld. CIT (Exemption) had further observed

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

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

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

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

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)

68 of the 1961 Act. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that no evidences 13 P a g e | 14 ITA No. 103/Alld/2017 and C.O.No. 22/Alld/2017 (arising out of ITA No. 103/Alld/2017) Assessment Year 2011-12 Sunshine Infraestate Private Limited,Allahabad were brought on record by the assessee before ld. AO/Ld. CIT(A) and even before the tribunal. It was submitted

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 of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner opined that the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3

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

3) of the Income Tax Act by the various higher authorities of the department so as per the principles of consistency addition made is unwarranted as the assessing officer is bound to give cognizance to the past records. (c) That in the assessment year 1999-2000 for the first time in the history of the case an identical and similar

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

3) of the Income Tax Act by the various higher authorities of the department so as per the principles of consistency addition made is unwarranted as the assessing officer is bound to give cognizance to the past records. (c) That in the assessment year 1999-2000 for the first time in the history of the case an identical and similar

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

3) of the I.T. Act 1961 on 26.03.2004 on total income of Rs. 1,70,60,110/-. Learned CIT(Appeals), Allahabad vide his order dated 20.09.2004 in appeal No. 23/DCIT/R-II/2004-05 confirmed the above 9 Assessment Year: 2001-02 Ghaus Memorial Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd., Allahabad , U.P. additions. The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Allahabad

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

3) Dismissed as position of ITA 1961 is very clear. The section was bought into IT. Act to prevent tax evasion using undervaluation of immovable property, sub-clause (b) of section 56 (2){vil) was amended in Finance Act 2014 with effect from 1st April 2014 as: (vii) where an individual of @ Hindu undivided family receives

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

3. BECAUSE after having observed as; "7.6 During the course of appellate proceedings, it is observed that the receipts are meant for Kriya Yog Ashram and the utilization of the said receipts are for the ashram and this being an on-going process and the appellant is merely a custodian of money of the ashram. With regard to cash withdrawal

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

3. BECAUSE after having observed as; "7.6 During the course of appellate proceedings, it is observed that the receipts are meant for Kriya Yog Ashram and the utilization of the said receipts are for the ashram and this being an on-going process and the appellant is merely a custodian of money of the ashram. With regard to cash withdrawal

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

3. BECAUSE after having observed as; "7.6 During the course of appellate proceedings, it is observed that the receipts are meant for Kriya Yog Ashram and the utilization of the said receipts are for the ashram and this being an on-going process and the appellant is merely a custodian of money of the ashram. With regard to cash withdrawal

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

3. BECAUSE after having observed as; "7.6 During the course of appellate proceedings, it is observed that the receipts are meant for Kriya Yog Ashram and the utilization of the said receipts are for the ashram and this being an on-going process and the appellant is merely a custodian of money of the ashram. With regard to cash withdrawal