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

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (1) [or sub-section (3)] of section 74, [or sub-section (3) of section 74A], he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1) [***], a return

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

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (1) [or sub-section (3)] of section 74, [or sub-section (3) of section 74A], he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1) [***], a return

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

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (1) [or sub-section (3)] of section 74, [or sub-section (3) of section 74A], he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1) [***], a return

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

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

SHOBHA RASTOGI,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Shobha Rastogi, V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 30-A, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Tax, Circle-1, Allahabad, U.P. Allahabad, U.P. Pan-Afqpr4774R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.2021

143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the ground no. 1 of assessee’s appeal is de void of any merit and substance and the same is dismissed. 5. Ground no. 3 is regarding validity of initiation of proceedings under section 148 of Income Tax Act. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that while issuing the notice under section

SANJAY MAJUMDAR,ALLAHABAD vs. PR. CIT, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Sanjay Majumdar, V. The Principal Commissioner Type Ii – 112, Devprayagam Of Income Tax, Sangam Vatika – Jhalwa, Aayakar Bhawan, Allahabad 211012 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad 211001 Pan: Adopm 2688P (Appellant) (Respondent)

143(3) of the 1961 Act, vide reassessment order dated 24.06.2016 , as in the opinion of Revenue , income by way of long term capital gains earned by assessee had escaped assessment , which had led to reopening of the concluded assessment by Revenue within the provisions of Section

RASHMI MEHROTRA,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT,, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2006-07 Rashmi Mehrotra V. Dcit 15B, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg Circle I Allahabad Allahabad Tan/Pan:Acmpm2530M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri N.C. Agarwal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10 02 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 12 02 2020

Capital Gains. 11. Because the order passed by CIT(A) is bad in law as well as on facts. 12. Because the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the following additional, '"ground taken before him : “Because the assessment order dated 31.12.2008 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act in wholly without ITA No.14/ALLD/2013 Page 3

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

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

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

143(3) on 14.12.2012 at Rs. 44,46,330/-. On perusal of assessment record, it was observed 2 A.Y. 2011-12 Mr. Devendra Singh, Allahabad that the assessee sold land at Civil Lines, Allahabad at Rs. 72,25,000/- , and the assessee has claimed benefit of indexed cost of acquisition as well as exemption under section

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

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

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

3) read with section 147 is invalid and liable to be quashed as illegal and without jurisdiction. 4. BECAUSE the reasons recorded for initiation of reassessment proceeding under section 147 is altogether fallacious and not into existence at all. 5. BECAUSE no notice under section 143(2) has been served upon appellant within stipulated time, therefore the whole