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

1 and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramnath & Co. v. CIT reported in (2020) 116 taxmann.com 885(SC)(refer para 17 to 20) are relevant . Admittedly , in the instant case the aforesaid sum of Rs. 6,31,788/- being employee contribution towards PF was not deposited by assessee to the credit of employees with

M/S. GOVIND STONE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HAMIRPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -5(4), BANDA

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

32 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Govind Stone Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO Banda concerned. While so far as additions made u/s 56(2)(viib), the additions wrt entire 170000 equity shares issued by the assessee were made by the AO. Our attention was drawn to Page no 29 of the paper book ,where the details of the equity shares issued

DCIT, CIRCLE-II , ALLAHABAD vs. BHARAT PUMPS & COMPRESSORS LTD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

32,95,170/- disallowed by AO towards employee share of PF received by assessee , the assessee has itself conceded and accepted that Rs.49,96,680/- has to be disallowed because the same was not deposited at all before filing of return of income u/s 139(1). Thus, the ld counsel for the assessee reiterated that the only issue which

DCIT, CIRCLE-II , ALLAHABAD vs. BHARAT PUMPS & COMPRESSORS LTD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

32,95,170/- disallowed by AO towards employee share of PF received by assessee , the assessee has itself conceded and accepted that Rs.49,96,680/- has to be disallowed because the same was not deposited at all before filing of return of income u/s 139(1). Thus, the ld counsel for the assessee reiterated that the only issue which

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

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.

32(1) would have been claimed by the assessee on the said properties and the ld. AO would have been bound to allow the same. It was submitted that in identical circumstances, in the case of his wife, the ld.CIT(A) had taken a different stance and allowed the appeal of the assessee. A copy of the order passed

MADHU DUBEY,ALLAHABAD vs. DC/AC-1(1),ALLAHABAD, MG MARG ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 Madhu Dubey V. Dc/Ac-1(1) 657A/1, Jamuna Nagar, Chak Mg Marg, Allahabad- Raghunath, Naini-211008. 211001. Pan:Asipd8489J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

32,37,080/- [Rs. 1,20,00,000/- (consideration) + Rs. 11,97,000/- (stamp duty) +Rs. 40.080/- (registration fee). The value adopted by registration authority of these properties, purchased by assessee during the year is Rs. 1,76.06,000/-. Without prejudice 16 any the ? addition, the difference of this market value Rs. 1.76.06.000/and purchase price paid

NEERAJ AGRAWAL,,MIRZAPUR vs. DCIT, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 131(1) to all the sundry creditors . In case where the summons under Section 131(1) returned unserved , the assessee was not informed by AO about the same and the reasons were not communicated to the assessee. It was submitted that it is only after the assessment order was passed, the assessee came to know about

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 131(1) to all the sundry creditors . In case where the summons under Section 131(1) returned unserved , the assessee was not informed by AO about the same and the reasons were not communicated to the assessee. It was submitted that it is only after the assessment order was passed, the assessee came to know about

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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ii. On account of inflated expenses on the basis of print outs of CPU marked as KZ-1 – Rs. 20,76,268/-. iii. On account of repair and maintenance - Rs.10,120/-. iv. On account of disallowance of interest – Rs.33,570/-. v. On account of disallowance of diesel expenses – Rs.8,70,985/-. vi. On account of disallowance of commission on sales

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ii. On account of inflated expenses on the basis of print outs of CPU marked as KZ-1 – Rs. 20,76,268/-. iii. On account of repair and maintenance - Rs.10,120/-. iv. On account of disallowance of interest – Rs.33,570/-. v. On account of disallowance of diesel expenses – Rs.8,70,985/-. vi. On account of disallowance of commission on sales

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ii. On account of inflated expenses on the basis of print outs of CPU marked as KZ-1 – Rs. 20,76,268/-. iii. On account of repair and maintenance - Rs.10,120/-. iv. On account of disallowance of interest – Rs.33,570/-. v. On account of disallowance of diesel expenses – Rs.8,70,985/-. vi. On account of disallowance of commission on sales