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

SURENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CIR-2, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2002-03 Surendra Kumar Mishra, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 794A/1, Sohabatiyabagh, Income Tax, Circle-2, Allahabad Allahabad-211006, U.P. Pan:Aibpm4858R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2025 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), Under Section 250 R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.10.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Dismissing The 'Additional Ground' Relating To Non-Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act, Raised Before The Appellate Authority During The Course Of First Round Of Litigation, Which Has Been Remanded Back By The Hon'Ble Itat In Terms Of Order Dated 09.11.2012, By Observing That The Return Filed By The Appellant In Terms Of Letter Dated 10.11.2008 As Not A Valid Return In Compliance To Notice Dated 11.02.2008 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act, As The Said Letter Was Filed By The Appellant After The Time Limit Of 30 Days Provided To Do So In Terms Of Notice Dated 11.02.208 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act. 2. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Observing That The Appellant Could Not Have Demand For Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The 1 Surendra Kumar Mishra

Capital Gain' under section 48 of the Act. 12. BECAUSE the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in not allowing full deduction of expenses claimed (other than freehold charges) at Rs.15,73,360/- and in restricting the same to Rs.14,16,024/- (being 90% of the claimed amount). 13. BECAUSE adhoc disallowance to the extent

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

15,58,927/- has already duly been taxed by the assessing officer vide the assessment order dated 30.06.15 passed u/s 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

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

15,58,927/- has already duly been taxed by the assessing officer vide the assessment order dated 30.06.15 passed u/s 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

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 (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

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

section 153C of the Act and the assessee did not raise any objection either during the assessment proceedings or before the CIT(A) then merely because this was not mentioned in the order- sheet would not change the fact duly recorded by the AO in the absence of any contrary fact or material brought before us. Hence, the mere verbal

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

section 153C of the Act and the assessee did not raise any objection either during the assessment proceedings or before the CIT(A) then merely because this was not mentioned in the order- sheet would not change the fact duly recorded by the AO in the absence of any contrary fact or material brought before us. Hence, the mere verbal

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.

15,00,000/-. However, during the survey under 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

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