DCIT CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. SHRI NEERAJ AGRAWAL, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

cash credit u/s 68 in bad in law and is liable to be deleted. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred both in fact and in law in confirming the rejection of the books of accounts of the appellant u/s 145(3) only on the basis of conjectures

NEERAJ AGRAWAL,,MIRZAPUR vs. DCIT, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

cash credit u/s 68 in bad in law and is liable to be deleted. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred both in fact and in law in confirming the rejection of the books of accounts of the appellant u/s 145(3) only on the basis of conjectures

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)

unexplained and added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the 1961 Act. The ld. CIT(A) after examining the audited accounts of the assessee which were filed along with the return of income filed u/s 139(1) on 30.09.2011 and also return of income filed on 15.02.2016 in response to notice u/s 153A , observed that

VIPIN GUPTA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Vipin Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Lal Bihara, G.T. Road, Bamrauli, Ward-2(3), Allahabad Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Anapg6886D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 16.05.2024. The Appeal Was Originally Filed Before The Ld. Cit(A), Allahabad & Was Subsequently Migrated To The National Faceless Appeal Centre. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing Appeal In Limine Without Affording Adequate & Effective Opportunity Of Being Head. 2. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining Addition Of Rs. 5,68,500/- Made On Account Of Initial Capital Introduced To Start New Business By Invoking The Provision Of Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Unexplained Credit.

unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) held that no documentary proof had been

M/S B.M.GUPTA & SONS,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. B. M. Gupta & Sons (Huf) V. Dcit Range-1 64 Balrampur House, Allahabad- Income Tax Office, 38 M. 211002. G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh- 211001. Tan/Pan: Aachb2800B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Asit Hajela, Ca Respondent By: Shri A.K. Singh, Cit ( Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2021 O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao:

cash credits and in respect of which the interest payments had been made, were submitted before the Ld. C1T(A). 05. BECAUSE the Ld. CIT(A) has erred while confirming the addition of Rs. 95.000/- being the security deposit in the name of Raj Bahadur treated as undisclosed deposit under section 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by not appreciating

GHAUS MEMORIAL SAHKARI AWAS SAMITI LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT RANGE-2, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

unexplained credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Appellant filed this appeal. Vide order dated 03.06.2008, Appeal No. 128/ACITR- 1/Alld/06-07 the Ld. CIT(A) enhanced the income by making an addition of Rs. 64,62,054/- under Section 68 of the I.T. Act since this was the amount of deposit received during the year by the assessee. Against this

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act, is not correct and infect it was the cash balance and not cash

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

credit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 10,96,55,770/-made as per discussion in para 4.1 of the order and the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition as per discussion in para 3 are totally incorrect and the entire approach observation

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

credit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 10,96,55,770/-made as per discussion in para 4.1 of the order and the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition as per discussion in para 3 are totally incorrect and the entire approach observation

VIJAY STONE PRODUCT,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

credit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 10,96,55,770/-made as per discussion in para 4.1 of the order and the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition as per discussion in para 3 are totally incorrect and the entire approach observation

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

credit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 10,96,55,770/-made as per discussion in para 4.1 of the order and the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition as per discussion in para 3 are totally incorrect and the entire approach observation

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

credit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 10,96,55,770/-made as per discussion in para 4.1 of the order and the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition as per discussion in para 3 are totally incorrect and the entire approach observation

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

credit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 10,96,55,770/-made as per discussion in para 4.1 of the order and the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition as per discussion in para 3 are totally incorrect and the entire approach observation

VIJAY STONE PRODUCT,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

credit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 10,96,55,770/-made as per discussion in para 4.1 of the order and the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition as per discussion in para 3 are totally incorrect and the entire approach observation

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

credit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 10,96,55,770/-made as per discussion in para 4.1 of the order and the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition as per discussion in para 3 are totally incorrect and the entire approach observation

VIJAY STONE PRODUCT,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

credit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 10,96,55,770/-made as per discussion in para 4.1 of the order and the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition as per discussion in para 3 are totally incorrect and the entire approach observation

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

credit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 10,96,55,770/-made as per discussion in para 4.1 of the order and the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition as per discussion in para 3 are totally incorrect and the entire approach observation

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

credit is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 10,96,55,770/-made as per discussion in para 4.1 of the order and the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition as per discussion in para 3 are totally incorrect and the entire approach observation