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

4) Dismissed — As discussed in ground of appeal three. 5) Dismissed — as and proof/evidence/documentation was provided regarding sources from which the amount was taken to capital account. 6) Dismissed — As no contrary evidence to conclusion as reached by Ld.JAO has been bought on record even in appeal proceedings. Onus in section 68

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

Section 68 of the 1961 Act. . The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a co-operative society. In the first round of litigation, the AO vide assessment order dated 26.03.2014 passed u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act made additions , inter-alia, to the tune of Rs. 1,67,51,761/- to the income

SHRI MAHAVEER CHARITABLE TRUST,ALLAHABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Mahaveer Charitable V. Commissioner Of Income Tax Trust (Exemption), Lucknow 46, Rajendra Nagar Balua Ghat, Allahabad Tan/Pan: Aahts9123K (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Pawan Jaiswal, C.A. Respondent By: Mr. Shantanu Dhamija, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2021 O R D E R

4,55.000 c) Funds received through cheque included above (8,52,000) d) Amount allowed @ 5 of Rs. 2,17,07,000 as deduction under section 115 BBC (10,85,350) e) Amount treated as income liable for taxation 1,97,69,650 merely the CIT(E) is of different view, proceedings as also order under section

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

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

SURESH CHANDRA PURWAR (HUF),ALLAHABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee with tribunal in ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 245D(4) of the 1961 Act. The ld. CIT(A) later confirmed the aforesaid order passed by the AO by dismissing appeal filed by the assessee. Aggrieved , the assessee has filed an appeal with tribunal. The assessee declared taxable income of Rs.59,27,677/- in the return of income filed on 17.09.2013 for ay: 2011-12, which included

M/S B.M.GUPTA & SONS,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. B. M. Gupta & Sons (Huf) V. Dcit Range-1 64 Balrampur House, Allahabad- Income Tax Office, 38 M. 211002. G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh- 211001. Tan/Pan: Aachb2800B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Asit Hajela, Ca Respondent By: Shri A.K. Singh, Cit ( Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2021 O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao:

section 68 in respect of 15 persons but learned CIT. (A) allowed in favour of Assesses in respect of last 5 items as per list his order on page 1 and 2. The Assesses is in appeal in respect of 10 items of credits not accepted by the A.O. The facts are that Assesses is an HUF and derives

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.

4 are dismissed. 13. The final issue is with regard to the charging of a sum of Rs. 3,96,606/- to tax under the provisions of section 68

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

Section 68 of the Act. 3.2 Further, from the AIR information and on-going through the 26AS generated from AST software of the department, it was observed by the AO that the assessee has deposited Rs. 31,86,420/- in cash in State Bank of India, High Court Branch, Allahabad in his Bank Account No. 30747477708 which

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

section 11. (3) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of net excess of income over expenditure of Rs.3,00,11,855/ under the head Income from business or profession. (4) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.36,68

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

section 11. (3) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of net excess of income over expenditure of Rs.3,00,11,855/ under the head Income from business or profession. (4) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.36,68

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

section 11. (3) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of net excess of income over expenditure of Rs.3,00,11,855/ under the head Income from business or profession. (4) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.36,68

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2) of the Act was served upon the Appellant within the statutory time period prescribed under the Act. Hence, the additions made are liable to be deleted and the assessment order passed is liable to be quashed. 4. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2) of the Act was served upon the Appellant within the statutory time period prescribed under the Act. Hence, the additions made are liable to be deleted and the assessment order passed is liable to be quashed. 4. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2) of the Act was served upon the Appellant within the statutory time period prescribed under the Act. Hence, the additions made are liable to be deleted and the assessment order passed is liable to be quashed. 4. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2) of the Act was served upon the Appellant within the statutory time period prescribed under the Act. Hence, the additions made are liable to be deleted and the assessment order passed is liable to be quashed. 4. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred

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

DCIT, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S MAHESH CHANDRA VISHNU CHANDRA SARRAF, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue ITA No

Bench: Sh. Ramit Kochar & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.199/Alld/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Vs. Acit-Circle-1, Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad. 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. (Respondent) [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-Circle-1, Vs. M/S Mahesh Chandra Allahabad. Vishnu Chandra Sarraf, 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.34/Alld/2016 (In I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Vs. Dcit-Circle-3, Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad. 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By None. Respondent By Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr

sections of the income tax act is unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4 I.T.A. No. 199/Alld/2016, & C.O. No. 34/Alld/2016 6- That in any view of the matter the appellant reserves his right to take any fresh ground of appeal before hearing of the appeal.” I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016 3. The revenue has taken