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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 of the Act of Rs.72,09,500/- made by the Assessing Officer for credit balances / unsecured loan from various parties. I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 4 6. That the documents, explanations filed by the Appellant, and the material available on record have not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and have been

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 of the Act of Rs.72,09,500/- made by the Assessing Officer for credit balances / unsecured loan from various parties. I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 4 6. That the documents, explanations filed by the Appellant, and the material available on record have not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and have been

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, vide assessment order dated 29.03.2016 passed by AO u/s 153A r.w.s. 144 of the 1961 Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 29.03.2016 passed by AO u/s 153A r.w.s. 144 of the 1961 Act, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A). The assessee submitted before ld. CIT(A) that

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

M/S MAHESH CHANDRA VISHNU CHANDRA SARRAF,ALLAHABAD vs. ACCT, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue ITA No

Bench: Sh. Ramit Kochar & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.199/Alld/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Vs. Acit-Circle-1, Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad. 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. (Respondent) [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-Circle-1, Vs. M/S Mahesh Chandra Allahabad. Vishnu Chandra Sarraf, 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.34/Alld/2016 (In I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Vs. Dcit-Circle-3, Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad. 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By None. Respondent By Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr

4. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) was perfectly justified in examining the valuer during the appellate proceeding, hence the purity rate as adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is perfectly correct. 5- That in any view of the matter the order passed by the learned Commissioner of income

DCIT, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S MAHESH CHANDRA VISHNU CHANDRA SARRAF, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue ITA No

Bench: Sh. Ramit Kochar & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.199/Alld/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Vs. Acit-Circle-1, Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad. 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. (Respondent) [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-Circle-1, Vs. M/S Mahesh Chandra Allahabad. Vishnu Chandra Sarraf, 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.34/Alld/2016 (In I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Vs. Dcit-Circle-3, Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad. 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By None. Respondent By Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr

4. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) was perfectly justified in examining the valuer during the appellate proceeding, hence the purity rate as adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is perfectly correct. 5- That in any view of the matter the order passed by the learned Commissioner of income

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

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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

132 of the Income Tax Act was carried out upon the assessee on 27.08.2009. Subsequent to the search being made, a notice under section 153A was issued on 7.07.2010 and finally an assessment was completed under section 153A rws 143(3) at a total income of Rs.1,82,70,440/-. Penalty proceedings under section

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

132 of the Income Tax Act was carried out upon the assessee on 27.08.2009. Subsequent to the search being made, a notice under section 153A was issued on 7.07.2010 and finally an assessment was completed under section 153A rws 143(3) at a total income of Rs.1,82,70,440/-. Penalty proceedings under section

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

132 of the Income Tax Act was carried out upon the assessee on 27.08.2009. Subsequent to the search being made, a notice under section 153A was issued on 7.07.2010 and finally an assessment was completed under section 153A rws 143(3) at a total income of Rs.1,82,70,440/-. Penalty proceedings under section

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

4. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is perfectly justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,93,88,147/- made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That

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

4. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is perfectly justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,93,88,147/- made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That

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

4. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is perfectly justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,93,88,147/- made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That

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

4. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is perfectly justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,93,88,147/- made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That

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

4. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is perfectly justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,93,88,147/- made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That

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

4. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is perfectly justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,93,88,147/- made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That

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

4. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is perfectly justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,93,88,147/- made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That