ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. M/S. J.P.YADAV , SONEBHADRA

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

144 read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act, which is a best judgment reassessment order passed by the AO. Our attention was drawn by ld. Sr. DR to page number 46, 59 , 63 and 68

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

68,000/- for the purposes of computing the income of the assessee and had taken the income disclosed in the earlier year in the computation of re-assessment and thereafter completed the re-assessment proceedings. Therefore, it observed that this was suggestive of the fact that the ld. AO had acted upon the return of income filed by the assessee

SMT. RANJANA BAJPAI,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ALLAHABAD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

144 only). 1.1 The ld. AO made the following three additions as under: a. Capital gains Rs. 36,21,000/-. 1 A.Y. 2009-10 Smt. Ranjana Bajpai b. Donation receipt Rs.2,00,000/-. c. Unexplained cash deposit Rs.10,50,000/-. 2. Aggrieved with this action of ld. AO, the appellant approached the ld. CIT(A) challenging all the three additions

SAURABH RASTOGI,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL) ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

68 of the Act, therefore the addition made by the assessing officer and confirmed by CIT(A) is highly unjustified. 11. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs.18,000/- and Rs.87,941/- on account of remuneration to partners and out of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act, as per para

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, 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

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

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)

section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. That in any view of the matter the assessment made on an income of Rs.13,37,630/- by order dated 12.12.2019 passed u/s 144 of the Act is bad both on the facts and in law. 2. That in any view of the matter

THE HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION,ALLAHABAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee with tribunal in ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: N.A.

Section 12AA(1)(a) of the 1961 Act. 6 Assessment Year: NA The High Court Bar Association, Allahabad 2.8 In the meantime, the assessee decided to invoke revisionary powers of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Allahabad, by filing revisionary petition u/s 264 of the 1961 Act, on 17.12.2020, which is filed against the assessment order dated 24.12.2019 passed

AMRESH KUMAR SINGH,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO- 2(1), ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

68,250/-. The returns so filed by the assessee were in consonance with his earlier returns, filed by him under section 139(4), in which he had declared a similar amount of income from salary. However, in between, a revised return had been filed by the assessee on 24.05.2013( for AY 2012-13) declaring total income of Rs.6

AMRESH KUMAR SINGH,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO 2 (1), ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

68,250/-. The returns so filed by the assessee were in consonance with his earlier returns, filed by him under section 139(4), in which he had declared a similar amount of income from salary. However, in between, a revised return had been filed by the assessee on 24.05.2013( for AY 2012-13) declaring total income of Rs.6

AMIT KUMAR,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE-2(1), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2005-06 Sri. Amit Kumar, V. Income Tax Officer, S/O Laxmi Chand, 384, Sulem Ward-2(1) Allahabad, U.P. Sarai, Allahabad, U.P. Pan-Amwpk3964B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: .08.2021

68 of the IT Act without any basis by the assessing officer and the same as maintained by the first appellate authority in haste by ignoring the correct facts is highly unjustified, incorrect and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case and hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 10- That in any view of the matter

M/S. L.P.R. CONSTRUCTION,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. L.P.R. Construction V. Dcit Circle-1 15F/1A, Baghambari Gaddi, Allahabad-211001. Allahapur, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh- 211001. Tan/Pan: Aaifm8174H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, Ca Respondent By: Shri A.K. Singh, Cit ( Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2021 O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao:

68,770/- on this account is unwarranted and liable to be declared. M/s L. P. R. Construction 4. That in any view of the matter interest charged u/s 234A, 234B of the Income Tax Act is highly unjustified. 5. That in any view of the matter the appellant reserves his rights to take any fresh ground of the appeal before

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

section 20(2) of the 1973 Act, mandate that the funds of the authority are to be applied towards meeting the expenses of the authority in the administration of that Act and for no other purpose. iv. The contention of the Revenue that the assessee was a commercial enterprise which had undertaken various civil construction work on behalf

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

section 20(2) of the 1973 Act, mandate that the funds of the authority are to be applied towards meeting the expenses of the authority in the administration of that Act and for no other purpose. iv. The contention of the Revenue that the assessee was a commercial enterprise which had undertaken various civil construction work on behalf

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

section 20(2) of the 1973 Act, mandate that the funds of the authority are to be applied towards meeting the expenses of the authority in the administration of that Act and for no other purpose. iv. The contention of the Revenue that the assessee was a commercial enterprise which had undertaken various civil construction work on behalf

ROHIT,FAIZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, AMBEDKAR NAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Nikhil Choudharyi.T.A. No.102/Alld/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

144 of the Act 61, dated 30/03/2015. 2. Condonation of delay: I.T.A. No.102/Alld/2024 2 Assessment Year: 2012-13 It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is belated by 692 days. That assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, on the ground that the appeal for the year before the first appellate authority has been manually

SWATANTRA MISHRA,GEORGE TOWN, ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Swatantra Mishra, Income Tax Officer, F-6 Tulsiani Enclave, Lowther Road, V. Ward-1(5), Allahabad George Town, Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Axvpm0471B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: None (Application) Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.09.2023 O R D E R

68,300/- to the income of the assessee. Further, addition was made by the AO with respect to bank interest of Rs. 65,908/- , and also unexplained investment in Axis Bank Mutual Fund of Rs. 10,00,000/-, were added by AO to the income of the assessee, vide reassessment order dated 21.12.2018 passed by AO u/s 144