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

capital gain for the relevant period. The assessee filed its reply dated 23.11.2015 and submitted that he had received Smt. Neeta Nath L/H of Lt. Dr. Jitendra Nath Rs. 60 lac through three cheques from M/s H.K. Infraventure Private Limited as per agreement dated 30.05.2012 for vacating the premises no. 13/15/17 Stanely Road, Allahabad which were under the tenancy

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

capital gain for the relevant period. The assessee filed its reply dated 23.11.2015 and submitted that he had received Smt. Neeta Nath L/H of Lt. Dr. Jitendra Nath Rs. 60 lac through three cheques from M/s H.K. Infraventure Private Limited as per agreement dated 30.05.2012 for vacating the premises no. 13/15/17 Stanely Road, Allahabad which were under the tenancy

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.

143(1). However, it was submitted that the amount of Rs. 1.85 Crores would form a part of a declared income because it had been declared suo moto by the assessee and tax paid thereon, and therefore, the provisions of section 69 would not apply. A list of dates and events was also provided by the ld. AR. A written

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

143(2) / 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued by the learned AO from time to time. The main question that was addressed by the Assessing Officer, was with regard to the claim of the assessee for grant of exemption under sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is registered 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

143(2) / 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued by the learned AO from time to time. The main question that was addressed by the Assessing Officer, was with regard to the claim of the assessee for grant of exemption under sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is registered 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

143(2) / 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued by the learned AO from time to time. The main question that was addressed by the Assessing Officer, was with regard to the claim of the assessee for grant of exemption under sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is registered under

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 GAINS- (i) Sales Consideration - Rs. 5,00,000.00 (ii) Stamp Duty Valuation - Rs. 15,78,000.00 (iii) Cost of Acquisition- .5260x2,80,000/1.3350-Rs.1,10,332.00 (iv) Indexed Cost of Acquisition( 2001-02) =1,10332x426/389- Rs.1,20,815.00 (v) As per New calculation of Indexed Cost- 1,20.815x264/100= Rs. 3,18,953.00 (vi) LONG TERM CAPITALGAINS

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

143(3) of the IT Act for A.Y. 2015-16. 2- That in any view of the matter the two lower authorities are absolutely wrong in taxing short term capital gain in the year under consideration specially when amount of Rs. 78 lacs as "advance" was received which is appearing in the balance sheet also during the assessment year

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

143(3) of the IT Act for A.Y. 2015-16. 2- That in any view of the matter the two lower authorities are absolutely wrong in taxing short term capital gain in the year under consideration specially when amount of Rs. 78 lacs as "advance" was received which is appearing in the balance sheet also during the assessment year

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

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

143(2) has been served upon appellant within stipulated time, therefore the whole of the assessment proceeding is vitiated for want of valid jurisdiction. 6. BECAUSE the NFAC has erred in law and on facts in sustaining addition of Rs.39,67,163.69 made on account of long term capital gain on sale and purchase of shares through Kotak Securities

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

capital gain as made by the assessing officer which was reduced to Rs.8,15,872/- by ld. CIT(A) is highly unjustified and Id. CIT(A) was not correct in taking indexation value of I.T.A. Nos.29, 68, 26, 28 & 47/Alld/2023 Asstt. Years:2007-08, 09-10 to 12-13 5 year 1987 when in fact jewellery was acquired prior

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

capital gain as made by the assessing officer which was reduced to Rs.8,15,872/- by ld. CIT(A) is highly unjustified and Id. CIT(A) was not correct in taking indexation value of I.T.A. Nos.29, 68, 26, 28 & 47/Alld/2023 Asstt. Years:2007-08, 09-10 to 12-13 5 year 1987 when in fact jewellery was acquired prior

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

capital gain as made by the assessing officer which was reduced to Rs.8,15,872/- by ld. CIT(A) is highly unjustified and Id. CIT(A) was not correct in taking indexation value of I.T.A. Nos.29, 68, 26, 28 & 47/Alld/2023 Asstt. Years:2007-08, 09-10 to 12-13 5 year 1987 when in fact jewellery was acquired prior

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

capital gain as made by the assessing officer which was reduced to Rs.8,15,872/- by ld. CIT(A) is highly unjustified and Id. CIT(A) was not correct in taking indexation value of I.T.A. Nos.29, 68, 26, 28 & 47/Alld/2023 Asstt. Years:2007-08, 09-10 to 12-13 5 year 1987 when in fact jewellery was acquired prior

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

capital gain as made by the assessing officer which was reduced to Rs.8,15,872/- by ld. CIT(A) is highly unjustified and Id. CIT(A) was not correct in taking indexation value of I.T.A. Nos.29, 68, 26, 28 & 47/Alld/2023 Asstt. Years:2007-08, 09-10 to 12-13 5 year 1987 when in fact jewellery was acquired prior

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

1) as well as details filed in the original assessment proceeding to which speaking order was passed u/s 143 (3) dated 14.12.2012 hence the very basis of initiation of proceedings are bad in Law. 4. That in any view of the matter the learned CIT Appeal was wrong in passing order ex-parte without providing reasonable opportunity of assessee

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

143(3) of the Act on 7.12.2019. Subsequently proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act were initiated with the issue of a notice under section 148 dated 30.03.2001. Prior to the assessment proceedings, the ld. AO observed that the assessee had made an investment in the construction of a building at 147-A/2, Jawahar Lal Nehru Road, Tagore

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

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 is not correct and the appellant is also relying upon the judgements of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench 'A' in case of Anil Kumar Jain Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward