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

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

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

POOJA GROVER,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CIR-2,, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 69A on account of loan taken from Mr. Umang Grover is confirmed. Loan taken from Shri Piyush Verma amounting to Rs.11,75,000/- Here again, the appellant has submitted bank account statement of Shri Piyush Verma as well as confirmation letter of amount advanced as loan on plain white paper. On perusal of bank account statement of Shri

DINESH KUMAR SINGH,MIRZAPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

29,42,820.00 9.2 2,90,790.00 0.9 2015-16 3,65,89,079.00 33,37,050.00 9.1 3,70,432.00 1.0 2016-17 4,19,97,858.00 38,72,410.00 9.2 5,55,640.00 1.3 The assessee also submitted that the assessee Liquor business is licensed , and the base of his business(Liquor) is license. The assessee also claimed

AHMAD HUSSAIN KHAN,,MIRZAPUR vs. ITO,, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

68, the amount should be found credited in the books of accounts of the appellant and while admittedly the appellant is not maintaining any books of account. Further it is settled view of law that bank pass book is not a books of account. Accordingly the entire exercise done by the authorities 3 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Shaheen Khan

MOHD. SULAMAN FAROOQUI ,PRATAPGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PRATAPGARH

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

29,400/- out of salary expenses by disallowing 10% of salary claimed as made by Assessing officer and confirmed by CIT(A). 5. That in any view of the matter disallowance of Rs, 13,072/- out of travelling expenses and Rs. 20,667/- out of depreciation by disallowing 10% of expenses claimed is highly unjustified. 6. That in any view

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/-. Subsequently, it came to the knowledge of the Department that the assessee, after getting a leasehold property converted to freehold in his own name, sold it to some persons and earned capital gain. Accordingly, a notice under section 148 was issued 3 Surendra Kumar Mishra on 11.02.2008. The assessee did not file a return in response

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

Section 36(1). By virtue of the Explanation below subclause (va), no deduction could be claimed if the contribution has not been paid, after collection from the employees by way of deduction from their salaries, within the due date under the EPF&MP Act. The deletion of a proviso under Section 43B cannot render otiose the Explanation under

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

68,32,697/- for the assessment year 2016-17. AYs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 11. The assessee is aggrieved at the denial of exemption under section 11 of the Act and the confirmation of the additions made by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, it is in appeal before us with the grounds of appeal cited earlier in this

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

68,32,697/- for the assessment year 2016-17. AYs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 11. The assessee is aggrieved at the denial of exemption under section 11 of the Act and the confirmation of the additions made by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, it is in appeal before us with the grounds of appeal cited earlier in this

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

68,32,697/- for the assessment year 2016-17. AYs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 11. The assessee is aggrieved at the denial of exemption under section 11 of the Act and the confirmation of the additions made by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, it is in appeal before us with the grounds of appeal cited earlier in this

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

29 of 79 her return of income declaring a total income of Rs.83,150/-. In this year also, the AO disallowed 5% of the payments made by the assessee in cash, i.e., 5% of Rs.10,50,000/-, which came to Rs.52,500/- and the same was added to the income of the assessee. In this year, the AO noticed that

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

29 of 79 her return of income declaring a total income of Rs.83,150/-. In this year also, the AO disallowed 5% of the payments made by the assessee in cash, i.e., 5% of Rs.10,50,000/-, which came to Rs.52,500/- and the same was added to the income of the assessee. In this year, the AO noticed that

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

29 of 79 her return of income declaring a total income of Rs.83,150/-. In this year also, the AO disallowed 5% of the payments made by the assessee in cash, i.e., 5% of Rs.10,50,000/-, which came to Rs.52,500/- and the same was added to the income of the assessee. In this year, the AO noticed that

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

29 of 79 her return of income declaring a total income of Rs.83,150/-. In this year also, the AO disallowed 5% of the payments made by the assessee in cash, i.e., 5% of Rs.10,50,000/-, which came to Rs.52,500/- and the same was added to the income of the assessee. In this year, the AO noticed that

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

29 of 79 her return of income declaring a total income of Rs.83,150/-. In this year also, the AO disallowed 5% of the payments made by the assessee in cash, i.e., 5% of Rs.10,50,000/-, which came to Rs.52,500/- and the same was added to the income of the assessee. In this year, the AO noticed that

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

29 of 79 her return of income declaring a total income of Rs.83,150/-. In this year also, the AO disallowed 5% of the payments made by the assessee in cash, i.e., 5% of Rs.10,50,000/-, which came to Rs.52,500/- and the same was added to the income of the assessee. In this year, the AO noticed that