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

d) the said judgment and order dated 16.09.2013, the Hon'ble High Court had specifically dealt with the applicability of the amended provision of section 2(15) effective from the assessment year 2009-10; e) the judgment and order dated 16.09.2013 (supra) had attained finality as the revenue did not challenge the same by taking the matter before

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

d) the said judgment and order dated 16.09.2013, the Hon'ble High Court had specifically dealt with the applicability of the amended provision of section 2(15) effective from the assessment year 2009-10; e) the judgment and order dated 16.09.2013 (supra) had attained finality as the revenue did not challenge the same by taking the matter before

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

d) the said judgment and order dated 16.09.2013, the Hon'ble High Court had specifically dealt with the applicability of the amended provision of section 2(15) effective from the assessment year 2009-10; e) the judgment and order dated 16.09.2013 (supra) had attained finality as the revenue did not challenge the same by taking the matter before

M/S GANGA NURSING HOME,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT,, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

D E R PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal, filed by assessee, being ITA No.186/Alld./2013, is directed against an appellate order dated 08.03.2013 in Appeal No.170/DCIT/R1- I/Alld/10-11passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Allahabad (hereinafter called "theCIT(A)"),for assessment year(ay):2008-09, the appellate proceedings had arisen before learned CIT(A) from assessment order

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

D E R PER BENCH: These threeappeals bearing ITA numbers 19 to 21/Alld./2020 for assessment years (ay’s): 2012-13& 2013-14 has been filed by assessee before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, U.P. (hereinafter called “the tribunal”) against separateappellate orders passed by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(A), Allahabad (hereinafter called “the CIT(A)”) . The appeal

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

D E R PER BENCH: These threeappeals bearing ITA numbers 19 to 21/Alld./2020 for assessment years (ay’s): 2012-13& 2013-14 has been filed by assessee before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, U.P. (hereinafter called “the tribunal”) against separateappellate orders passed by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(A), Allahabad (hereinafter called “the CIT(A)”) . The appeal

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

D E R PER BENCH: These threeappeals bearing ITA numbers 19 to 21/Alld./2020 for assessment years (ay’s): 2012-13& 2013-14 has been filed by assessee before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, U.P. (hereinafter called “the tribunal”) against separateappellate orders passed by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(A), Allahabad (hereinafter called “the CIT(A)”) . The appeal

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.

d. On the issue of section 115BBE, it was submitted that since section 69 had been applied, the tax would be levied under section 115BBE. e. On the issue of sundry creditors, it was submitted that even in the confirmations produced before him, it was seen that the same was contradictory (showing a proprietor as a partner) and therefore

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

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 and seizure action under section 132(1

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

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 and seizure action under section 132(1

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

D E R PER SUBHASH MALGURIA:J.M. These five appeals have been filed by the assessee against the respective impugned appellate orders dated 03/01/203, 27/03/2023, 15/02/2023, 20/02/203 and 10/03/2023 for assessment years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 102-13 respectively. In these appeals the assessee has raised the following grounds: I.T.A. Nos.29, 68, 26, 28 & 47/Alld/2023

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

D E R PER SUBHASH MALGURIA:J.M. These five appeals have been filed by the assessee against the respective impugned appellate orders dated 03/01/203, 27/03/2023, 15/02/2023, 20/02/203 and 10/03/2023 for assessment years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 102-13 respectively. In these appeals the assessee has raised the following grounds: I.T.A. Nos.29, 68, 26, 28 & 47/Alld/2023

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

D E R PER SUBHASH MALGURIA:J.M. These five appeals have been filed by the assessee against the respective impugned appellate orders dated 03/01/203, 27/03/2023, 15/02/2023, 20/02/203 and 10/03/2023 for assessment years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 102-13 respectively. In these appeals the assessee has raised the following grounds: I.T.A. Nos.29, 68, 26, 28 & 47/Alld/2023

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

D E R PER SUBHASH MALGURIA:J.M. These five appeals have been filed by the assessee against the respective impugned appellate orders dated 03/01/203, 27/03/2023, 15/02/2023, 20/02/203 and 10/03/2023 for assessment years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 102-13 respectively. In these appeals the assessee has raised the following grounds: I.T.A. Nos.29, 68, 26, 28 & 47/Alld/2023

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

D E R PER SUBHASH MALGURIA:J.M. These five appeals have been filed by the assessee against the respective impugned appellate orders dated 03/01/203, 27/03/2023, 15/02/2023, 20/02/203 and 10/03/2023 for assessment years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 102-13 respectively. In these appeals the assessee has raised the following grounds: I.T.A. Nos.29, 68, 26, 28 & 47/Alld/2023

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

gain arising from the transfer of a long term capital assets being equity shares in a company is exempted under section 10(38) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 9. BECAUSE the NFAC has erred in law and on facts in sustaining addition of Rs.4,23,000/- made by invoking the provision of section 69 on account of net receipts

ABDULLAH KHAN,BHADOHI vs. CIT (A), VARANASI

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoita Nos.22 & 23/Alld/2022 Ays: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Abdullah Khan, Takiya Kallan Shah, Main Road, Tax (Appeals), Varanasi District-Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi), U.P. Pan-Akypk9399L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Arif Iqbal, Advocate Department By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2022 O R D E R Shri Vijay Pal Rao: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Both Dated 04.06.2019 For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2011-12, Respectively. 2. The Impugned Orders Of The Cit(A) Were Passed On 04.06.2019, Whereas These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee On 01.07.2022, Therefore, The Delay Of More Than Two Years Is Required To Be Explained. The Assessee Has Filed The Applications For Condonation Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Could Not Receive The Impugned Orders Passed By The Cit(A) Till 20.03.2020 When The Assessee Obtained The Certified Copies Of The Above Orders. The Learned Ar Of The Assessee Has Further Submitted That The Counsel Who Was Appearing For The Assessee Also Did Not Communicate About The Impugned Orders Passed By The Cit(A) Therefore, The Assessee Was Having No Knowledge About The Impugned Orders. He Has Further Submitted That When The Orders Were Received By The Assessee, It Was Covid-19

D E R SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders of CIT(A), both dated 04.06.2019 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2011-12, respectively. 2. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were passed on 04.06.2019, whereas these appeals have been filed by the assessee