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.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 partly allowing the appeal of the assessee against the assessment done by the DCIT, Central Circle Allahabad on 25.06.2021. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. Because the learned CIT (A) was not legally justified in affirming the order of the assessing authority, regarding the invocation of section 69 of the Income

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

section 20(2) of the 1973 Act, mandate that the funds of the authority are to be applied towards meeting the expenses of the authority in the administration of that Act and for no other purpose. iv. The contention of the Revenue that the assessee was a commercial enterprise which had undertaken various civil construction work on behalf of State

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

section 20(2) of the 1973 Act, mandate that the funds of the authority are to be applied towards meeting the expenses of the authority in the administration of that Act and for no other purpose. iv. The contention of the Revenue that the assessee was a commercial enterprise which had undertaken various civil construction work on behalf of State

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

section 20(2) of the 1973 Act, mandate that the funds of the authority are to be applied towards meeting the expenses of the authority in the administration of that Act and for no other purpose. iv. The contention of the Revenue that the assessee was a commercial enterprise which had undertaken various civil construction work on behalf of State

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the ‘Act’) dated 22.12.2023 passed by ld. CIT(A), NFAC. It is further seen that the ld. AO passed an order dated 16.12.2016 after issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act on account of an information allegedly pertaining to income escaping assessment. However, the appellant failed to file any return

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 (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(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

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. 30/03/2019 11/04/2019 2. 31/01/2020 12/02/2020 3. 23/12/2020 07/01/2021 4. 15/02/2021 02/03/2021 5. 11/10/2021 26/10/2021 6. 07/12/2021 22/12/2021 7. 13/01/2022 28/01/2022 8. 03/03/2022 18/03/2022 9. 11/10/2022 20/10/2022 10. 12/12/2022 27/12/2022 3 A.Y. 2011-12 Mr. Devendra Singh, Allahabad 11. 24/02/2023 07/03/2023 But there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte appellate

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

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 and bad, assessment order dated 23.03.2022 passed in consequence of said proceeding is wholly without jurisdiction, accordingly

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