SANJAY MAJUMDAR,ALLAHABAD vs. PR. CIT, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Sanjay Majumdar, V. The Principal Commissioner Type Ii – 112, Devprayagam Of Income Tax, Sangam Vatika – Jhalwa, Aayakar Bhawan, Allahabad 211012 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad 211001 Pan: Adopm 2688P (Appellant) (Respondent)

deduction towards cost of improvement was rightly claimed by assessee while computing long term capital gains chargeable to tax. Thus

SHOBHA RASTOGI,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Shobha Rastogi, V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 30-A, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Tax, Circle-1, Allahabad, U.P. Allahabad, U.P. Pan-Afqpr4774R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.2021

gain by applying the provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer has not quantified the income assessable to tax that has escaped assessment while recording the reasons for reopening of the assessment. Therefore, in the absence of the quantification of the income at the time of recording the reasons, the Assessing Officer was not having

MOHAMMAD NAZIM,FATEHPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4), FATEHPUR

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2014-15 Mr. Income Tax Officer, Mohammad Nazim, V. Ward-2(4), Fatehpur, Income Tax 133 Kheldar, Fatehpur-212601,U.P. Office, Fatehpur-212601,U.P. Pan:Agepn3675J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Mayank Arora, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Amlendu Nath Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.09.2023 O R D E R

deduction in computing Capital Gains. 4. Because the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred to ignore the circumstances

MEJA URJA NIGAM (P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD-2 (2), ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for ay: 2015-16 and 2016-17

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Capital gains. (F) Income from other sources. 10. By an amendment made in 1988, 'interest on securities' has been made chargeable to tax as business income when such interest forms part of business profits and in all other cases under section 56(2)(id) as income from other sources. The amendment made in 1988 has no relevance for the purpose

AROTI GHOSH,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

capital gain of Rs.39,67,163.69 on sale of shares without deducting the cost of acquisition of shares purchased in earlier

SUCHITRA TANDON,PRAYAGRAJ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE - 2 ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

deduction u/s 54 of the Act in respect of the capital gain. Learned Sr. Department Representative relied on the following

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (1) [or sub-section (3)] of section 74, [or sub-section (3) of section 74A], he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1) [***], a return

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (1) [or sub-section (3)] of section 74, [or sub-section (3) of section 74A], he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1) [***], a return

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3) , ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (1) [or sub-section (3)] of section 74, [or sub-section (3) of section 74A], he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1) [***], a return

RAJESH KUMAR JAISWAL,,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY/ACIT(CENTRAL), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: the query raised by the assessing authority vide questionnaire issued under section 142 (1) dated 23.01.2021, in assessment proceedings for the AY 2018-19.

capital gains tax had been paid. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the details of all immovable properties and sources of investments. On 5.04.2021, the assessee furnished details wherein the total investment in the aforesaid property was shown as Rs.1,25,73,180/-. This discrepancy in the consideration price that was admitted

M.K. AGRAWAL & CO.,SONEBHADRA vs. ACIT RANGE-III, MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2010-11 M.K. Agrawal & Co., V. Acit, Range-Ii, Mirzapur Sonebhadra

gained in popularity and in size, the dealers who were not endowed with liberal amount of working capital found it difficult to extend the scheme to many customers. Then the financiers came into the picture. The finance company would buy the goods from the dealer and let them to the customer under hire-purchase agreement. The dealer would deliver

DCIT, CIRCLE-II , ALLAHABAD vs. BHARAT PUMPS & COMPRESSORS LTD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital in nature. These are also not illegal payments. Accordingly, additions so made (Rs. 96,26,000+Rs. 29,02,000) are hereby deleted.” 5. Now it was the turn of Revenue to be aggrieved by the decision of ld. CIT(A) allowing assessee’s appeal on this issue and the Revenue has filed this appeal with tribunal. The appeal

DCIT, CIRCLE-II , ALLAHABAD vs. BHARAT PUMPS & COMPRESSORS LTD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital in nature. These are also not illegal payments. Accordingly, additions so made (Rs. 96,26,000+Rs. 29,02,000) are hereby deleted.” 5. Now it was the turn of Revenue to be aggrieved by the decision of ld. CIT(A) allowing assessee’s appeal on this issue and the Revenue has filed this appeal with tribunal. The appeal

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

capital nature, could not be treated as an income earned during the year by the appellant. Therefore, the sum of Rs. 12.97 Crores could not be treated to the income of the appellant authority, much less taxed in its hands. 8.3 The learned CIT(A) did not agree with the submissions of the assessee. He pointed out that

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

capital nature, could not be treated as an income earned during the year by the appellant. Therefore, the sum of Rs. 12.97 Crores could not be treated to the income of the appellant authority, much less taxed in its hands. 8.3 The learned CIT(A) did not agree with the submissions of the assessee. He pointed out that

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

capital nature, could not be treated as an income earned during the year by the appellant. Therefore, the sum of Rs. 12.97 Crores could not be treated to the income of the appellant authority, much less taxed in its hands. 8.3 The learned CIT(A) did not agree with the submissions of the assessee. He pointed out that