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

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

SAURABH RASTOGI,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL) ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

76,281/- on account of inflated profit as alleged on the basis of profit and loss printout on account of corrupt data as made by the assessing officer as per para 5.5 of the order is highly unjustified. 7. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs.54,37,966/- by alleging unexplained cash credit under section 68

DHIRENDRA SINGH,MIRZAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(1), MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Dhirendra Singh V. Income Tax Officer Mangraha, Chunar Ward 3(1) Mirzapur Mirzapur Pan:Bipps5569C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Brij Bhushan Goenka, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 03 2025

68 of the Act, was deserved to be upheld. He, therefore, confirmed the addition. The ld. CIT(A), however, accepted the explanation of the assessee for the fresh addition to capital account and did not confirm the addition in this regard. On the issue of service of notice under section

SANKAR LAL JAISWAL,,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: SH. SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

68,000/- are incorrect and contrary to the actual facts of the case. 6. That in any view of the matter the assessee reserves his right to take any further ground of appeal before hearing of the appeal.” 2. It is seen from the memo of appeal that the appeal is delayed by over a year. The assessee has filed

AHMAD HUSSAIN KHAN,,MIRZAPUR vs. ITO,, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

68, the amount should be found credited in the books of accounts of the appellant and while admittedly the appellant is not maintaining any books of account. Further it is settled view of law that bank pass book is not a books of account. Accordingly the entire exercise done by the authorities 3 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Shaheen Khan

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

76,936.00 (as per Para 5 of the assessing officer's order) as maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as per Para 8.2 of his order under the head "Difference in creditors for goods" is highly unjustified and uncalled for because the entire working and figures/details were not correctly taken nor considered properly hence the addition as maintainedis

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

76,936.00 (as per Para 5 of the assessing officer's order) as maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as per Para 8.2 of his order under the head "Difference in creditors for goods" is highly unjustified and uncalled for because the entire working and figures/details were not correctly taken nor considered properly hence the addition as maintainedis

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

76,936.00 (as per Para 5 of the assessing officer's order) as maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as per Para 8.2 of his order under the head "Difference in creditors for goods" is highly unjustified and uncalled for because the entire working and figures/details were not correctly taken nor considered properly hence the addition as maintainedis

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

76,936.00 (as per Para 5 of the assessing officer's order) as maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as per Para 8.2 of his order under the head "Difference in creditors for goods" is highly unjustified and uncalled for because the entire working and figures/details were not correctly taken nor considered properly hence the addition as maintainedis

AMRESH KUMAR SINGH,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO- 2(1), ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

68,250/-. The returns so filed by the assessee were in consonance with his earlier returns, filed by him under section 139(4), in which he had declared a similar amount of income from salary. However, in between, a revised return had been filed by the assessee on 24.05.2013( for AY 2012-13) declaring total income of Rs.6

AMRESH KUMAR SINGH,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO 2 (1), ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

68,250/-. The returns so filed by the assessee were in consonance with his earlier returns, filed by him under section 139(4), in which he had declared a similar amount of income from salary. However, in between, a revised return had been filed by the assessee on 24.05.2013( for AY 2012-13) declaring total income of Rs.6

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

68 of 79 evidence or material in his possession, and rather he has admitted that he has no other information other than bank statements and, therefore, there was no propriety on the part of AO to make disallowance of expenditure without pointing out any specific instances. 13.9 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that alternatively, the assessee may be allowed

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

68 of 79 evidence or material in his possession, and rather he has admitted that he has no other information other than bank statements and, therefore, there was no propriety on the part of AO to make disallowance of expenditure without pointing out any specific instances. 13.9 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that alternatively, the assessee may be allowed

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

68 of 79 evidence or material in his possession, and rather he has admitted that he has no other information other than bank statements and, therefore, there was no propriety on the part of AO to make disallowance of expenditure without pointing out any specific instances. 13.9 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that alternatively, the assessee may be allowed

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

68 of 79 evidence or material in his possession, and rather he has admitted that he has no other information other than bank statements and, therefore, there was no propriety on the part of AO to make disallowance of expenditure without pointing out any specific instances. 13.9 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that alternatively, the assessee may be allowed