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

143(3) of the 1961 Act . There was further addition of Rs. 42,31,186/- made by the AO to the income of the assessee on account of unexplained cash credit by invoking provisions of Section 68

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

68 read with Section 115BBE of the 1961 Act, without allowing any deduction or allowances, vide assessment order dated 28.03.2016 passed u/s 143(3

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

143(3)/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,75,210/-. 12.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023 & ITA Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ALLD/2023 Page 58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75

SURENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CIR-2, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2002-03 Surendra Kumar Mishra, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 794A/1, Sohabatiyabagh, Income Tax, Circle-2, Allahabad Allahabad-211006, U.P. Pan:Aibpm4858R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2025 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(A), Under Section 250 R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.10.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Dismissing The 'Additional Ground' Relating To Non-Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act, Raised Before The Appellate Authority During The Course Of First Round Of Litigation, Which Has Been Remanded Back By The Hon'Ble Itat In Terms Of Order Dated 09.11.2012, By Observing That The Return Filed By The Appellant In Terms Of Letter Dated 10.11.2008 As Not A Valid Return In Compliance To Notice Dated 11.02.2008 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act, As The Said Letter Was Filed By The Appellant After The Time Limit Of 30 Days Provided To Do So In Terms Of Notice Dated 11.02.208 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act. 2. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Observing That The Appellant Could Not Have Demand For Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The 1 Surendra Kumar Mishra

3. BECAUSE furnishing of letter requesting to treat the return filed originally as return in compliance to notice under section 148 is a valid return and the CIT(A) has erred in law in observing that the same in not compliance of notice issued under section 148 of the Act. 4. BECAUSRE the CIT(A) has grievously erred

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

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 in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after considering the facts and law, case

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

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 in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after considering the facts and law, case

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

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 in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after considering the facts and law, case

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

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 in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after considering the facts and law, case

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

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 in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after considering the facts and law, case

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

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 in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after considering the facts and law, case