ARUP BANERJI,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Arup Banerji, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 14/18, Elgin Road, Allahabad Income Tax, Circle-1, Allahabad Pan:Acupb7330A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dismissing His Appeal Against The Order Of The Dcit, Circle-1, Allahabad Passed On 30.12.2016. 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 Holding That Appellant Does Not Want To Pursue The Appeal & Dismissing Appeal Ex- Party Without Affording An Adequate & Effective Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Allowing The Set-Off Of Loss From Derivative Trading Of Rs. 66,05,524/- Brought Forward From Assessment Year 2008-09 Against The Current Year Income Of Rs. 60,19,056/- Earned From Derivative Trading. 3. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Wrongly Conceived The Fact That Appellant Has Brought Forward Loss From Trading In 'Commodity Derivatives' As Per Clause (E) Of Section 43(5) Whereas The Appellant Has Brought Forward Loss From Trading In 'Derivative' As Per Clause

Capital Gain while the AO has concluded after examination that this was in the nature of business income and therefore he has disallowed

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

Capital Gains. 8. Because the Ld. Assessing Authority should have also referred the matter to Valuation for determining the Fair Market Value before determining the value U/s 50C (1) since the appellant is of the view that the circle value fixed actually exceeds the fair market value. The findings given by the Ld. Appellate Authority in this context

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

Capital Gain. The assessee had sold an open land during the assessment year under consideration and claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act. The contention of the Assessing Officer is that section 54 of the Act speaks of residential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head, "income from house property'. The said residential house could be consisting

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

DEVENDRA SINGH,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, RANGE-1, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Devendra Singh, The Deputy Commissioner Of 166A, Puravaldi Kydganj, V. Income Tax, Range-1, Allahabad, Allahabad-211003,U.P. U.P. Pan:Aexps6329H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.09.2023 O R D E R

disallowing the exemption u/s 54F of the act without bringing any positive material on record in the garb of section 147 of the act by the assessing officer is highly unjustified. 6. That in any view of the matter investment in construction of property duly disclosed in books of account as well in financial statement in the original return itself

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

disallowed and additions/disallowances be made to be income of the assessee and why the assessee may not be assessed accordingly. In response it was submitted that its activities of the assessee authority were of a charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15) was not applicable in its case. 7.2 The AO was not satisfied with the reply

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

disallowed and additions/disallowances be made to be income of the assessee and why the assessee may not be assessed accordingly. In response it was submitted that its activities of the assessee authority were of a charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15) was not applicable in its case. 7.2 The AO was not satisfied with the reply

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

disallowed and additions/disallowances be made to be income of the assessee and why the assessee may not be assessed accordingly. In response it was submitted that its activities of the assessee authority were of a charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15) was not applicable in its case. 7.2 The AO was not satisfied with the reply