M/S KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

45 I.T.A. No.12/Alld/2014, A.Y. 2010-11 the Audit Report. But the assessee could not substantiate his claim by providing item wise chart of weight loss. During the remand proceedings for the A.Y. 2009-10 on 06.08.2013, the assessee explained about the process of manufacturing of Zarda by showing raw material. It was observed that the elements of the raw materials

ACIT,, ALLAHABAD vs. KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

45 I.T.A. No.12/Alld/2014, A.Y. 2010-11 the Audit Report. But the assessee could not substantiate his claim by providing item wise chart of weight loss. During the remand proceedings for the A.Y. 2009-10 on 06.08.2013, the assessee explained about the process of manufacturing of Zarda by showing raw material. It was observed that the elements of the raw materials

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

45 of 79 Rs.88,000/-. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are partly allowed." by the CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order, he has completely erred in restricting the relief to 50% only and sustaining the addition of Rs.88,000/-without any valid reason. 4. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely ignored and overlooked the facts

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

45 of 79 Rs.88,000/-. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are partly allowed." by the CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order, he has completely erred in restricting the relief to 50% only and sustaining the addition of Rs.88,000/-without any valid reason. 4. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely ignored and overlooked the facts

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

45 of 79 Rs.88,000/-. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are partly allowed." by the CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order, he has completely erred in restricting the relief to 50% only and sustaining the addition of Rs.88,000/-without any valid reason. 4. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely ignored and overlooked the facts

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

45 of 79 Rs.88,000/-. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are partly allowed." by the CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order, he has completely erred in restricting the relief to 50% only and sustaining the addition of Rs.88,000/-without any valid reason. 4. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely ignored and overlooked the facts

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

45 of 79 Rs.88,000/-. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are partly allowed." by the CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order, he has completely erred in restricting the relief to 50% only and sustaining the addition of Rs.88,000/-without any valid reason. 4. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely ignored and overlooked the facts

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

45 of 79 Rs.88,000/-. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are partly allowed." by the CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order, he has completely erred in restricting the relief to 50% only and sustaining the addition of Rs.88,000/-without any valid reason. 4. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely ignored and overlooked the facts

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

45 of 79 Rs.88,000/-. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are partly allowed." by the CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order, he has completely erred in restricting the relief to 50% only and sustaining the addition of Rs.88,000/-without any valid reason. 4. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely ignored and overlooked the facts

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

45 of 79 Rs.88,000/-. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are partly allowed." by the CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order, he has completely erred in restricting the relief to 50% only and sustaining the addition of Rs.88,000/-without any valid reason. 4. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely ignored and overlooked the facts

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

45 of 79 Rs.88,000/-. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are partly allowed." by the CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order, he has completely erred in restricting the relief to 50% only and sustaining the addition of Rs.88,000/-without any valid reason. 4. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely ignored and overlooked the facts

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

45 of 79 Rs.88,000/-. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are partly allowed." by the CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order, he has completely erred in restricting the relief to 50% only and sustaining the addition of Rs.88,000/-without any valid reason. 4. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has completely ignored and overlooked the facts

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

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

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

45-104. It was submitted that the aforesaid plots are on main Mirzapur road and are less than 7.2kms. from the boundary of the municipal limits of Allahabad. The ld. DR submitted that road distance from shortest route is to be taken. The ld. DR has submitted an paper book containing 5 pages which are placed on record

NEERAJ AGRAWAL,,MIRZAPUR vs. DCIT, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

45,63,994/- was made by the AO on account of differential amount of stock and treated as undisclosed investment merely on conjecture and surmises that the assessee does not keep proper and adequate records to substantiate the quantity of stock. It was also submitted that copy of statement recorded during the course of survey under Section 133A