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.

section 133A, it came to light that the actual consideration paid for the immovable property was Rs.3 Crores. This was admitted by the assessee during his statement recorded on 18.01.2018 and furthermore the seller, namely Sh. Kashi Naresh Mehrotra had also confirmed the sale consideration as being Rs.3 Crores on which necessary capital gains tax had been paid. During

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

1 A.Y. 2014-15 Arup Banerji (d) of section 43(5) which is excluded from the definition of 'speculative transaction' with effect from 01.04.2006. 4. BECAUSE the appellant has rightly set-off the losses from derivative trading brought forward from assessment year 2008-09 against the current year income from derivative trading. 5. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary

AJAY KUMAR GUPTA,FATEHPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI (AO:ITO-2(4),FATEHPUR, FATEHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital gain on stamp duty value which is totally arbitrary and against law and fact. 4. That the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) erred not to consider that the learned assessing officer erred not to consider the reply dated 05.11.19 in response to notice dated 01.11.19 under section 142(1

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

Gains from AYs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 business and profession’. The net profit disclosed by the assessee of Rs. 6,54,93,137/- was added to the total income of the assessee and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. 7.6 Moving on the AO further observed that certain funds and grants shown under the head under

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

Gains from AYs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 business and profession’. The net profit disclosed by the assessee of Rs. 6,54,93,137/- was added to the total income of the assessee and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. 7.6 Moving on the AO further observed that certain funds and grants shown under the head under

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

Gains from AYs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 business and profession’. The net profit disclosed by the assessee of Rs. 6,54,93,137/- was added to the total income of the assessee and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. 7.6 Moving on the AO further observed that certain funds and grants shown under the head under

MADHURENDRA NATH,ALLAHABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Smt. Neeta Nath, L/H Of Lt. Dr. Jitendra Nath Income Tax, Central Circle, Civil Lines, Allahabad B/401, Mayan Enclave, 49/13, Clive Road, Allahabad Pan-Abepn1795Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhurendra Nath, Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-502, Vinayak Le Grande, Income Tax, Central Circle, 16/12, Lal Bahadur Shastri Civil Lines, Allahabad Road, Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aaipn8161D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, Adv Respondent By: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2023 O R D E R Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M.: These Two Appeals By The Two Related Assessees Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 28.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. These Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 153C In Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Action Under Section 132(1) Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 05.12.2013 In The Case Of Shri. Hemant Kumar Sindhi. Therefore, The Facts & Circumstances As Well As The Grounds Of Appeal

1 and 2 of the assessee’s appeal, the same are dismissed. 12. Ground no. 3 and 4 are regarding the validity of assessment order for want of satisfaction recorded by the AO. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the AO has framed the assessment without recording the satisfaction before invoking the provisions of section 153C

SMT. NEETA NATH L/H OF LATE DR. JITENDRA NATH,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Smt. Neeta Nath, L/H Of Lt. Dr. Jitendra Nath Income Tax, Central Circle, Civil Lines, Allahabad B/401, Mayan Enclave, 49/13, Clive Road, Allahabad Pan-Abepn1795Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhurendra Nath, Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-502, Vinayak Le Grande, Income Tax, Central Circle, 16/12, Lal Bahadur Shastri Civil Lines, Allahabad Road, Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aaipn8161D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, Adv Respondent By: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2023 O R D E R Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M.: These Two Appeals By The Two Related Assessees Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 28.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. These Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 153C In Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Action Under Section 132(1) Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 05.12.2013 In The Case Of Shri. Hemant Kumar Sindhi. Therefore, The Facts & Circumstances As Well As The Grounds Of Appeal

1 and 2 of the assessee’s appeal, the same are dismissed. 12. Ground no. 3 and 4 are regarding the validity of assessment order for want of satisfaction recorded by the AO. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the AO has framed the assessment without recording the satisfaction before invoking the provisions of section 153C

RAMESH CHANDRA VAISH ,ALLAHABAD vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

1,30,00,000/- , which comes to Rs. 35,23,514/- shall be short term capital gain chargeable to tax in the hand of the assessee which was brought to tax by the AO by invoking provision of section

RAMESH CHANDRA VAISH,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

1,30,00,000/- , which comes to Rs. 35,23,514/- shall be short term capital gain chargeable to tax in the hand of the assessee which was brought to tax by the AO by invoking provision of section

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

1), leading to an order under section 147 r.w.s 144 (incidentally the AO’s order is under section 144 only). 1.1 The ld. AO made the following three additions as under: a. Capital gains

DR. AROTI GHOSH,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2008-09

capital gains, vide reassessment order dated 31.03.2016 passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 148 of the 1961 Act. 2 A.Y. 2008-09 Dr. Aroti Ghosh 4. The assessee filed rectification application under section 154 of the Act , which was dismissed by AO vide rectification order dated 4.8.2016 passed u/s 154 , by holding as under:- “In this case, the assessee

KAILASH JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT(CC), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria, Ju Dicial Member

1,70,000 undisclosed expenditure 17,75,000 unexplained expenditure 48,75,000 unexplained expenditure 2009-10 55,00,000 Adv.recd from various persons 2.99 crore Transaction with Dr. Bansal 2,72,152 on account of capital gain 2010-11 10,55,000 unexplained expenditure 7,80,000 undisclosed expenditure 8,15,872 out of capital gain

KAILASH JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT(C.C.), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria, Ju Dicial Member

1,70,000 undisclosed expenditure 17,75,000 unexplained expenditure 48,75,000 unexplained expenditure 2009-10 55,00,000 Adv.recd from various persons 2.99 crore Transaction with Dr. Bansal 2,72,152 on account of capital gain 2010-11 10,55,000 unexplained expenditure 7,80,000 undisclosed expenditure 8,15,872 out of capital gain

KAILASH JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT(C.C.), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria, Ju Dicial Member

1,70,000 undisclosed expenditure 17,75,000 unexplained expenditure 48,75,000 unexplained expenditure 2009-10 55,00,000 Adv.recd from various persons 2.99 crore Transaction with Dr. Bansal 2,72,152 on account of capital gain 2010-11 10,55,000 unexplained expenditure 7,80,000 undisclosed expenditure 8,15,872 out of capital gain

KAILASH JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT(CC), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria, Ju Dicial Member

1,70,000 undisclosed expenditure 17,75,000 unexplained expenditure 48,75,000 unexplained expenditure 2009-10 55,00,000 Adv.recd from various persons 2.99 crore Transaction with Dr. Bansal 2,72,152 on account of capital gain 2010-11 10,55,000 unexplained expenditure 7,80,000 undisclosed expenditure 8,15,872 out of capital gain

KAILASH JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT (CC), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria, Ju Dicial Member

1,70,000 undisclosed expenditure 17,75,000 unexplained expenditure 48,75,000 unexplained expenditure 2009-10 55,00,000 Adv.recd from various persons 2.99 crore Transaction with Dr. Bansal 2,72,152 on account of capital gain 2010-11 10,55,000 unexplained expenditure 7,80,000 undisclosed expenditure 8,15,872 out of capital gain

MOHD UBAID ANSARI,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, ALLAHABAD , ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Mohd Ubaid Ansari V. The Income Tax Department 337, Sultanpur Bhawa (Faceless) Noorulla Road Khuldabad Allahabad (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bajpa0699B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R

Capital Gain”. The AO completed the assessment under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.39,99,466/-. 2.3 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 2.4 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal

OM PRAKASH SINGH,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Om Prakash Singh, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 147A/2, Tagore Town, J.L.N. Income Tax, Central Circle, Road, Allahabad, U.P. Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Aiepp0574G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Adv Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.10.2024 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)-, Lucknow-3, Dated 11.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:- “1. Because Proceeding Under Section 147 Of The Act By Issuance Of Notice Dated 30.03.2021 Under Section 148 On The Basis Of D.V.O. Report His Only Erroneous & Bad, Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2022 Passed In Consequence Of Said Proceeding Is Wholly Without Jurisdiction, Accordingly, The Entire Proceeding In Consequence Of Notice Dated 30.03.2021 Are Vitiated & Not Maintainable. Without Prejudice To The Aforesaid 2. Because The Addition Of Rs.9,26,796/- Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer On Account Of Alleged Difference In The Valuation Of Office Building Between The Value Appearing In The Audited Books Of Account As Compared To The Valuation Made By The D.V.O., As Also Confirm By The Id. Cit(A), Is Wholly Erroneous As The Report Of The Valuation Officer Is An Estimate & The Same

capital gains in that particular case). Therefore, it has held that there is no substance in the plea that the ld. AO could not have taken the valuation report into account. The Hon’ble Court held that what was necessary to be adjudicated, was about the existence of relevant material which formed foundation of a belief and constituted reasons