ACIT,ALLAHABAD vs. M/S SUNSINE INFRASTATE PVT TTD, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner Of Sunshine Infraestate Income-Tax, Central Circle, V. Private Limited Allahabad, U.P. 17, Industrial Area, Naini, Allahabad, U.P. Pan: Aancs9247H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 22/Alld/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.103/Alld/2017) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sunshine Infraestate Private Limited The Assistant 17, Industrial Area, Naini, V. Commissioner Of Allahabad, U.P. Income-Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad, U.P. Pan: Aancs9247H (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the 1961 Act and made additions to the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 2,50,00,000/-. It was submitted that assessment was made by invoking provisions of Section 144 read with Section 153A of the 1961 Act. It was submitted by ld. CIT-DR before the Bench that there

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 69 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 70 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 71 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 72 (J.1.1.1) SLPs filed by Revenue against aforesaid

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 69 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 70 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 71 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 72 (J.1.1.1) SLPs filed by Revenue against aforesaid

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 69 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 70 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 71 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 72 (J.1.1.1) SLPs filed by Revenue against aforesaid

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 69 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 70 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 71 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 72 (J.1.1.1) SLPs filed by Revenue against aforesaid

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

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 that

VIJAY STONE PRODUCT,SONEBHADRA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2011-12 Vijay Stone Product, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Bari Dala, Sonebhadra-231001 Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad Pan: Aagfv4724J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- 3, Lucknow Dated 29.10.2018 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed A Penalty Of Rs. 1 Lac Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 221 Of The Act Against The Total Levy Of Rs. 27,26,200/- Made By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That In Any View Of The Matter Order Passed U/S 221(1) Of The It Act Imposing Huge Penalty & His Action As Partly Confirmed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) By Maintaining Penalty Of Rs. 1,00,000/- Is Unjustified & Incorrect In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter Tax Liability On The Basis Of Assessment Order As Created Is Not Correct At All Therefore The Question Of Maintaining Penalty Of Rs. 1,00,000/- Is Unwarranted In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer & His Action As Partly Confirmed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Is Totally Incorrect & Illegal & Hence The Question Of Maintaining Penalty Does Not Arise & Therefore So Maintained Penalty Is Liable To Be Deleted In All Fairness & In Interest Of Justice.

72,62,103/- had been raised which became due for payment after 30.04.2013. On 30.04.2013, a notice under section 221(1) had been issued to the assessee and subsequently the ld. AO had also allowed installments, vide an order dated 30.06.2013, but records that the assessee had not made any payment. The ld. AO records that three more notices

KAILASH JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT(C.C.), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria, Ju Dicial Member

2,72,152 on account of capital gain 2010-11 10,55,000 unexplained expenditure 7,80,000 undisclosed expenditure 8,15,872 out of capital gain 2011-12 25,00,000 undisclosed transaction 5,00,000 undisclosed income 2012-13 7,71,250 rough & dumb document 10,00,000 undisclosed expenditure 6 crore unexplained investment 2.2 The present appeals

KAILASH JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT (CC), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria, Ju Dicial Member

2,72,152 on account of capital gain 2010-11 10,55,000 unexplained expenditure 7,80,000 undisclosed expenditure 8,15,872 out of capital gain 2011-12 25,00,000 undisclosed transaction 5,00,000 undisclosed income 2012-13 7,71,250 rough & dumb document 10,00,000 undisclosed expenditure 6 crore unexplained investment 2.2 The present appeals

KAILASH JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT(C.C.), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria, Ju Dicial Member

2,72,152 on account of capital gain 2010-11 10,55,000 unexplained expenditure 7,80,000 undisclosed expenditure 8,15,872 out of capital gain 2011-12 25,00,000 undisclosed transaction 5,00,000 undisclosed income 2012-13 7,71,250 rough & dumb document 10,00,000 undisclosed expenditure 6 crore unexplained investment 2.2 The present appeals

KAILASH JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT(CC), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria, Ju Dicial Member

2,72,152 on account of capital gain 2010-11 10,55,000 unexplained expenditure 7,80,000 undisclosed expenditure 8,15,872 out of capital gain 2011-12 25,00,000 undisclosed transaction 5,00,000 undisclosed income 2012-13 7,71,250 rough & dumb document 10,00,000 undisclosed expenditure 6 crore unexplained investment 2.2 The present appeals

KAILASH JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT(CC), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria, Ju Dicial Member

2,72,152 on account of capital gain 2010-11 10,55,000 unexplained expenditure 7,80,000 undisclosed expenditure 8,15,872 out of capital gain 2011-12 25,00,000 undisclosed transaction 5,00,000 undisclosed income 2012-13 7,71,250 rough & dumb document 10,00,000 undisclosed expenditure 6 crore unexplained investment 2.2 The present appeals

RAMJI VAISH,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT(CC), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

2,93,88,147/- made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after

RAMJI VAISH,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT(C.C.), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

2,93,88,147/- made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after

M/S JAI MAA SHARDA SERVICE STATION,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

2,93,88,147/- made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after

RAMJI VAISH,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT(CC), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

2,93,88,147/- made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD vs. VIJAY STONE PRODUCT, SONEBHADRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

2,93,88,147/- made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after

M/S JAI MAA SHARDA SERVICE STATION,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

2,93,88,147/- made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act and the issue is covered under exception under Rule 6DD(J) as well as issue is supported by various case laws. 5. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the addition made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act after