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

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

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

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