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

21 has observed that: “in view of the above, the submission of the assessee that the amount of Rs. 1,67,51,761/- represents the deposits/installments made by respective members of the society prior to assessment year under consideration and these being old deposits, no addition can be made under Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is found

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

5,87,424/- as undisclosed cash only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The assessee submitted that the AO did not provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the AO never called for further evidences . The assessee claimed that the AO made additions to the income of the assessee in a very general manner

NEERAJ AGRAWAL,,MIRZAPUR vs. DCIT, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

5,87,424/- as undisclosed cash only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The assessee submitted that the AO did not provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the AO never called for further evidences . The assessee claimed that the AO made additions to the income of the assessee in a very general manner

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

5 6. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in initiating the penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.129/Alld/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

5 6. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in initiating the penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.129/Alld/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

5 6. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in initiating the penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.129/Alld/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

5 6. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in initiating the penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.129/Alld/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years

M/S UDVASIT BEROJGAR SAHAKARI SHRAM SAMVIDA SAMITI LTD.,,SONBHADRA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19

21 of tax-payer referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Limited reported in 319 ITR 306(SC) and decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Aimil Limited reported in (2010) 321 ITR 508(Del.) , and Hon'ble Madras High Court held as under

SRI VIJAY GAUTAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

21, Muir Road, v. Income Tax, Circle- II, Allahabad – 211002,U.P. Allahabad-211001, U.P. PAN:AEFPG1598N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent by: ShriA.K. Singh ,Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 27.12.2022 Date of pronouncement: 05.01.2023 O R D E R PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal, filed by assessee, being ITA No.23/Alld./2020, is directed

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)

5. That in any view of the matter finding an observation of both the two lower authorities with regard to addition of Rs.11,69,631/- and Rs.1,68,000/- 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

ASHA TEWARI,MAHARAJGANJ vs. ITO, 1(4), MAHARAJGANJ

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Asha Tewari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Partawal, Maharajganj, U.P. Maharajganj Pan:Adjpt8320L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Arvind Shukla, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, On 18.03.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. Because The Learned Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Sustaining Addition Of Rs 21,55,000/- U/S 69A Which Actually Represented Receipts From Sale Of Petroleum Products Routed Through The Audited Books Of Accounts. 2. Because The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining Addition Of Rs 21,55,000/- U/S 69A Without Appreciating That The Said Section Is Not Applicable To The Facts Of The Case As The Entries Of Bank Deposits Are Flowing Directly From The Audited Books Of Accounts. 3. Because The Addition Of Rs 21,55,000/- Has Been Made & Sustained Simply On Negative Presumptions, Conjectures & Surmises To The Entire Exclusion Of Facts On Record. 4. Because The Learned Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate That During Demonetization Petrol Pumps Were Exempted From Taking Old Sbn & Hence There Was Nothing Unusual Or Incorrect With All Entries Routed Properly Through Audited Books Of Accounts.” 1 A.Y. 2017-18 Asha Tewari

21,55,000/- has been made and sustained simply on negative presumptions, conjectures and surmises to the entire exclusion of facts on record. 4. Because the learned authorities below have failed to appreciate that during demonetization petrol Pumps were exempted from taking old SBN and hence there was nothing unusual or incorrect with all entries routed properly through audited books

COMMERCIAL AUTO SALES PVT. LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

21 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Commercial Auto Sales Private Limited, Allahabad and the date of payment falls after the due date under the Employees' Provident Fund Act, they will be denied deduction for all times. In view of the second proviso, which stood on the statute book at the relevant time, each of such assessee(s) would not be entitled

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

5. Coming to the facts of the case, on the issue of addition of Rs. 16,68,581/-, made on account of, ‘unaccounted sales’, the ld. CIT(A) observed that from the print out taken from the computer, the ld. AO had found that sales were worth Rs. 38,01,62,145/-. On the other hand, the sales

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

5. Coming to the facts of the case, on the issue of addition of Rs. 16,68,581/-, made on account of, ‘unaccounted sales’, the ld. CIT(A) observed that from the print out taken from the computer, the ld. AO had found that sales were worth Rs. 38,01,62,145/-. On the other hand, the sales

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

5. Coming to the facts of the case, on the issue of addition of Rs. 16,68,581/-, made on account of, ‘unaccounted sales’, the ld. CIT(A) observed that from the print out taken from the computer, the ld. AO had found that sales were worth Rs. 38,01,62,145/-. On the other hand, the sales

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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. Before the ld. CIT(A), some additional evidences were submitted and a report was also called from

SHRI NEERAJ MAHESHWARI,SONEBHADRA vs. DY. CIT, (CPC), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Before Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Neeraj Maheshwari, V. Shri Amrit Raj Singh, Bijpur Rihand Nagar, Sonebhadra- Dy. Commissioner Of Inco Tax, 2312233, U.P. Cpc Bangalore Pan- Afvpm5660E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. A.K. Pandey, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022 O R D E R

21 Neeraj Maheshwari in favour of Revenue. However, subsequently, the said decision of Single Judge of Hon'ble Madras High Court was challenged by the tax-payer before the Division Bench of Hon'ble Madras High Court by filing writ appeal no. 2854 of 2018 and CMP No. 23727 of 2018 and the Division Bench of Hon'ble Madras High

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