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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.114/Alld//2025 (A.Y. 12-13) “1. That the notice dated 03.04.2013 issued under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act’) and the assessment order dated 31.07.2017 passed under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad ('Assessing Officer

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.114/Alld//2025 (A.Y. 12-13) “1. That the notice dated 03.04.2013 issued under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act’) and the assessment order dated 31.07.2017 passed under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad ('Assessing Officer

RAJESH KUMAR JAISWAL,,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY/ACIT(CENTRAL), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: the query raised by the assessing authority vide questionnaire issued under section 142 (1) dated 23.01.2021, in assessment proceedings for the AY 2018-19.

68 in respect of sundry creditors, it was submitted that the said amounts had since been paid back to the creditor and the purchases and sales had never been questioned. In the circumstances, the sundry creditor could not be doubted and the addition was deserving of being quashed. 9. Opposing these arguments of ld. AR, Sh. A.K. Singh

ANOOP SINGH,KAUSHAMBI vs. ITO,, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2005-06 Anoop Singh V. Income Tax Officer Ahuja Bazar Allahabad Kaushambi Tan/Pan:Aqkps6453R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S. K. Jaiswal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 11 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 11 2019 O R D E R

section 68 has been deleted by Hon'ble ITAT to the extent of Rs.2,15,000/- and additions to the extent of Rs.8,00,000/- has been set aside to the file of assessing officer. ITA No.81/ALLD/2018 Page 2 of 4 3. BECAUSE the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that appellant has explained

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while not providing opportunity to the Assessing Officer on the additional evidences filed during appellate proceedings. 11. The appellant craves right to add, alter or amend any grounds of appeal that may be taken at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged

NEERAJ AGRAWAL,,MIRZAPUR vs. DCIT, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while not providing opportunity to the Assessing Officer on the additional evidences filed during appellate proceedings. 11. The appellant craves right to add, alter or amend any grounds of appeal that may be taken at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged

SUSHIL KUMAR MISHRA,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CIRCLE-1), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2011-12 Sushil Kumar Mishra, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of F-6, Lowther Road George Town, Income Tax (Circle-1), Allahabad-211006 Allahabad Pan:Axvpm0472C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 27.06.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:- “1- That In Any View Of The Matter Order Passed U/S 147/144 Of The Act Dated 10.12.2018 By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By Cit(A) By Passing Ex- Parte Decision Is Uncalled For & More So Addition Made Are Illegal. The Action U/S 147/148 Of The Act Is Totally Illegal. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter Both The Lower Authorities Decided The Matter Ex-Parte Without Considering The Fact & Without Providing Opportunity To The Assessee Hence The Order Of Two Lower Authorities Liable To Be Cancelled As Illegal In The Fact Of Circumstances Of The Case. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter Cit (Appeal) Is Highly Unjustified In Deciding The Appeal Ex-Parte Without Giving Reasonable Time, Without Service Of Notice & More So No Personal Hearing Was Allowed In This Background Addition As Confirmed By Cit Appeal Is Uncalled For. 1 A.Y. 2011-12 Sushil Kumar Mishra

271(1)(b). In response to this penalty notice, the assessee filed a partial reply, but the ld. AO records that he did not give a specific reply with regard to the issues raised in the notice under section 142(1). Accordingly, ld. AO did a best 2 A.Y. 2011-12 Sushil Kumar Mishra judgment assessment and added back

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

271(1)(c) have also been challenged. 2 A.Y. 2009-10 Smt. Ranjana Bajpai 3. Before us, the ld. AR vehemently argued through, written submissions, that the appellant was belonging to a very wealthy / well- to do family, with her husband being a high net worth individual. It was averred that the assessee was not required to spend any amount

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 271(1)(c) were initiated. During the course of assessment, the following additions were made by the ld. AO. i. On account of suppressed sale – Rs. 16,68

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 271(1)(c) were initiated. During the course of assessment, the following additions were made by the ld. AO. i. On account of suppressed sale – Rs. 16,68

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 271(1)(c) were initiated. During the course of assessment, the following additions were made by the ld. AO. i. On account of suppressed sale – Rs. 16,68

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

68,20,842/- for Grants and Funds received. (5) Because the order of the CIT(A) is generally bad both on facts and in law. AYs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 (6) Because the assessee reserves the right to rescind or add or delete any ground of appeal.” 6. Since assessment year 2014-15 is the first assessment year

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

68,20,842/- for Grants and Funds received. (5) Because the order of the CIT(A) is generally bad both on facts and in law. AYs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 (6) Because the assessee reserves the right to rescind or add or delete any ground of appeal.” 6. Since assessment year 2014-15 is the first assessment year

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

68,20,842/- for Grants and Funds received. (5) Because the order of the CIT(A) is generally bad both on facts and in law. AYs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 (6) Because the assessee reserves the right to rescind or add or delete any ground of appeal.” 6. Since assessment year 2014-15 is the first assessment year

GYAN MATA RADHA SATYAM KRIYAYOG ASHRAM RESEARCH INSTITUTE, JHUSI, ALLAHABAD,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Years: 2011-12 Gyan Mata Radha Satyam Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kriyayog Ashram Research Ward 1(2), Institute, Jhusi, Allahabad Allahabad Tan/Pan:Airpr 1165L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, Ca Respondent By: Shri A.K. Singh, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2021 O R D E R

271(1)(b) of the Act and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) be deleted. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that there is a default and non- compliance on the part of the assessee to the notice issued u/s. 142(1) dated 04.08.2018. The assessee has filed the reply belatedly and that after show cause notice

M/S GANGA NURSING HOME,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is issued on this point.” 4. The assessee being aggrieved by an assessment framed by the AO filed first appeal with Ld. CIT (A) , who after considering the contentions of the assessee 5 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ganga Nursing Home v. DCIT, Range-1, Allahabad decided appeal against the assessee, vide appellate

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

section 40A(3) r'w Rule 6DDj) needs to be strictly interpreted by applying the Hayden's rule of Mischief and also the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of customs Vs M/Dilip Kumar And Company 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to allude

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

section 40A(3) r'w Rule 6DDj) needs to be strictly interpreted by applying the Hayden's rule of Mischief and also the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of customs Vs M/Dilip Kumar And Company 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to allude