NEERAJ AGRAWAL,,MIRZAPUR vs. DCIT, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961(hereinafter called “ the Act”). We have heard these cross appeals in Open Court proceedings through physical hearing mode. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in memo of appeal filed with Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, U.P. (hereinafter called “ the tribunal”), in ITA No. 100/Alld./2017

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

SMT. RANJANA BAJPAI,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ALLAHABAD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

78,330/- for the entire year, there could not be savings of Rs.10,50,000/- which could be deposited in the bank. He accordingly upheld the action of the ld. AO regarding this amount. 3. Aggrieved with the action of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant has filed the present appeal with grounds running into several pages, not being numbered

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 153D of the Act. He contended that the Assessing Officer was at liberty to proceed with ex-parte order if he considered that there was default on the part of the assessee in providing information or in making compliance with the notices. The learned Counsel for the assessee also submitted that direction of CBDT to Assessing Officer

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 153D of the Act. He contended that the Assessing Officer was at liberty to proceed with ex-parte order if he considered that there was default on the part of the assessee in providing information or in making compliance with the notices. The learned Counsel for the assessee also submitted that direction of CBDT to Assessing Officer

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 153D of the Act. He contended that the Assessing Officer was at liberty to proceed with ex-parte order if he considered that there was default on the part of the assessee in providing information or in making compliance with the notices. The learned Counsel for the assessee also submitted that direction of CBDT to Assessing Officer

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 153D of the Act. He contended that the Assessing Officer was at liberty to proceed with ex-parte order if he considered that there was default on the part of the assessee in providing information or in making compliance with the notices. The learned Counsel for the assessee also submitted that direction of CBDT to Assessing Officer

M/S. SUBHASH STONE INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NAINITAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 68 of the 1961 Act , and hence income assessed by the AO was to the tune of Rs. 78

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3) of the Act. 3.3 There were further additions being made by AO on account of un-explained investment in FDR made by assessee with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Civil Lines, Allahabad on 12th July, 2008to the tune of Rs. 5lakh , and also on account of FDR of Rs. 5lakh made by assessee on 4th August, 2008 with

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 20(2) of the 1973 Act, mandate that the funds of the authority are to be applied towards meeting the expenses of the authority in the administration of that Act and for no other purpose. iv. The contention of the Revenue that the assessee was a commercial enterprise which had undertaken various civil construction work on behalf

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 20(2) of the 1973 Act, mandate that the funds of the authority are to be applied towards meeting the expenses of the authority in the administration of that Act and for no other purpose. iv. The contention of the Revenue that the assessee was a commercial enterprise which had undertaken various civil construction work on behalf

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 20(2) of the 1973 Act, mandate that the funds of the authority are to be applied towards meeting the expenses of the authority in the administration of that Act and for no other purpose. iv. The contention of the Revenue that the assessee was a commercial enterprise which had undertaken various civil construction work on behalf

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

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 by the AO , and prayers were made to upheld the additions as were made by the AO and set aside the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A). 6.4 The Ld. Counsel

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

68%. This also substantiates my estimate @ 52%. Accordingly, the computation of undisclosed income on account of undisclosed silver found during the course of survey will be as under – i) Quantity of stock of silver articles found on 2159.691 kg physical verification at the time of survey, as per 12 I.T.A. No. 199/Alld/2016, & C.O. No. 34/Alld/2016 7.4 The ld. DR further

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

68%. This also substantiates my estimate @ 52%. Accordingly, the computation of undisclosed income on account of undisclosed silver found during the course of survey will be as under – i) Quantity of stock of silver articles found on 2159.691 kg physical verification at the time of survey, as per 12 I.T.A. No. 199/Alld/2016, & C.O. No. 34/Alld/2016 7.4 The ld. DR further

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

78,319/ on account of extra profit addition as maintained by the CIT(A) is not correct when the assessee Company is maintaining books of accounts, books are audited, по defect pointed out in books hence application of N.P. rate of 10% by CIT(A) as against 15% as applied by AO without giving any comparable case is not correct

SUBHASH STONE PRODUCT (P) LTD.,SONEBHADRA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 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

78,319/ on account of extra profit addition as maintained by the CIT(A) is not correct when the assessee Company is maintaining books of accounts, books are audited, по defect pointed out in books hence application of N.P. rate of 10% by CIT(A) as against 15% as applied by AO without giving any comparable case is not correct

M/S SUBHASH STONE PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED,SONEBHADRA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 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

78,319/ on account of extra profit addition as maintained by the CIT(A) is not correct when the assessee Company is maintaining books of accounts, books are audited, по defect pointed out in books hence application of N.P. rate of 10% by CIT(A) as against 15% as applied by AO without giving any comparable case is not correct