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

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

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

54 ITR (Trib.) 358 (ITAT Delhi Bench) 14. ITAT, Pune Bench- Priya Kishore Jagtiani v. PCIT, in ITA No. 1274 to 1276 /Pun/2017 15. ITAT, Delhi Bench- Hike Private Limited v. PCIT, in ITA No. 2906/Del/2018 5b. The Ld. CIT DR on the other hand submitted before Division Bench that the case of the assessee was selected for framing scrutiny

M/S KESARWANI <ARKETING (P) LTD,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT (OSD),, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

68 of the Income Tax Act is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case as the appellant discharged the burden as required and action of the assessing officer and his observations in the course as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are not correct in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING(P).LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT. CIT(OSD),, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

68 of the Income Tax Act is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case as the appellant discharged the burden as required and action of the assessing officer and his observations in the course as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are not correct in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING (P) LTD,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,(OSD), ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

68 of the Income Tax Act is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case as the appellant discharged the burden as required and action of the assessing officer and his observations in the course as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are not correct in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING (P) LTD,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT. C.IT,(OSD), ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

68 of the Income Tax Act is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case as the appellant discharged the burden as required and action of the assessing officer and his observations in the course as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are not correct in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That

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

68 has been deleted by Hon'ble ITAT to the extent of Rs.2,15,000/- and additions to the extent of Rs.8,00,000/- has been set aside to the file of assessing officer. ITA No.81/ALLD/2018 Page 2 of 4 3. BECAUSE the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that appellant has explained the source

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

54, Kolkata - [2018] 100 taxmann.com 328 (Calcutta).” 3 3. The main thrust of the written submissions filed by the assessee is that the amended provisions of section 36(1) (va) as well as section 43B vide Finance Bill, 2021 is applicable only with effect from assessment year 2021-22 onwards and not for the year under consideration

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

54,93,137/- Income & Expenditure account (as exemption u/s 11 is denied) Grants and Funds 12,97,37,974/- received 19,52,31,111/- and in subjecting the same to taxation. 2. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in sustaining the denial of exemption under section 11 read with section

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

54,93,137/- Income & Expenditure account (as exemption u/s 11 is denied) Grants and Funds 12,97,37,974/- received 19,52,31,111/- and in subjecting the same to taxation. 2. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in sustaining the denial of exemption under section 11 read with section

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

54,93,137/- Income & Expenditure account (as exemption u/s 11 is denied) Grants and Funds 12,97,37,974/- received 19,52,31,111/- and in subjecting the same to taxation. 2. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in sustaining the denial of exemption under section 11 read with section

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 153A was to avoid litigation proliferating on the issue of, “undisclosed income” and if the same controversy was raised under the new provisions, the avowed purpose of bringing the new provisions would be forfeited. Thus, relying on the said judgment, he held that the ld. AO had to compute the total income for six assessment years. In view

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 153A was to avoid litigation proliferating on the issue of, “undisclosed income” and if the same controversy was raised under the new provisions, the avowed purpose of bringing the new provisions would be forfeited. Thus, relying on the said judgment, he held that the ld. AO had to compute the total income for six assessment years. In view

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 153A was to avoid litigation proliferating on the issue of, “undisclosed income” and if the same controversy was raised under the new provisions, the avowed purpose of bringing the new provisions would be forfeited. Thus, relying on the said judgment, he held that the ld. AO had to compute the total income for six assessment years. In view

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. M/S. J.P.YADAV , SONEBHADRA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 147 of the 1961 Act, which is a best judgment reassessment order passed by the AO. Our attention was drawn by ld. Sr. DR to page number 46, 59 , 63 and 68 of the paper book filed by the assessee . The ld. Sr. DR would submit that ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions as were made