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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

c) and 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

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

c) and 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

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for concealment of income. Addition of Rs. 78,059/-/” 4c. The AO further observed that there are cash deposits recorded in the cash books maintained by the assessee, which were found during the course of survey operations u/s 133A on 24.02.2012, as detailed hereunder: S.No. Date Concerned Perons/Firm name Amount Shambhoo Nath Agrawal

NEERAJ AGRAWAL,,MIRZAPUR vs. DCIT, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for concealment of income. Addition of Rs. 78,059/-/” 4c. The AO further observed that there are cash deposits recorded in the cash books maintained by the assessee, which were found during the course of survey operations u/s 133A on 24.02.2012, as detailed hereunder: S.No. Date Concerned Perons/Firm name Amount Shambhoo Nath Agrawal

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

1. BECAUSE the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without giving adequate / effective opportunity of being heard. 2. BECAUSE the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in sustain penalty of Rs.3,73,113/- without appreciating the fact that penalty levied with reference

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.

271(1)(c). He particularly invited our attention to para 7 and 9 of the said order, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the ld. AO should not be carried away by the plea of the assessee on 12 A.Y.2018-19 Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal issues like voluntary disclosure, buying peace, avoiding litigation or amicable settlement to explain away

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

271(1)(c) were initiated. 7.6 Moving on the AO further observed that certain funds and grants shown under the head under Schedule 3 of the balance-sheet were not being added to the total income of the assessee. He, therefore, asked the assessee to show cause as to why the same should not be added to its total income

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

271(1)(c) were initiated. 7.6 Moving on the AO further observed that certain funds and grants shown under the head under Schedule 3 of the balance-sheet were not being added to the total income of the assessee. He, therefore, asked the assessee to show cause as to why the same should not be added to its total income

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

271(1)(c) were initiated. 7.6 Moving on the AO further observed that certain funds and grants shown under the head under Schedule 3 of the balance-sheet were not being added to the total income of the assessee. He, therefore, asked the assessee to show cause as to why the same should not be added to its total income

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

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

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

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

1. On facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in restricting the GP rate 23% instead of 30% applied by the AO, without giving any finding as to why the GP rate of 30% as applied by AO was excessive and that the CIT(A) herself upholding the action of the AO in rejecting

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

1. On facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in restricting the GP rate 23% instead of 30% applied by the AO, without giving any finding as to why the GP rate of 30% as applied by AO was excessive and that the CIT(A) herself upholding the action of the AO in rejecting

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

1. On facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in restricting the GP rate 23% instead of 30% applied by the AO, without giving any finding as to why the GP rate of 30% as applied by AO was excessive and that the CIT(A) herself upholding the action of the AO in rejecting

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

1. On facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in restricting the GP rate 23% instead of 30% applied by the AO, without giving any finding as to why the GP rate of 30% as applied by AO was excessive and that the CIT(A) herself upholding the action of the AO in rejecting