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)

capital gains chargeable to tax. Thus, the assessee submitted before ld. Pr. CIT during the course of revisionary proceedings that the reassessment order passed by AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and hence revisionary proceedings initiated by ld. Pr. CIT within provisions of Section 263 of the 1961 Act, be dropped . The assessee also relied

MEJA URJA NIGAM (P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD-2 (2), ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for ay: 2015-16 and 2016-17

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

gains'. Similarly, if a company purchases a rented house and gets rent, which rent will be assessable to tax under section 22 of the Act as income from house property. Likewise, a company may have income from other sources. It may buy shares and get dividends. Such dividends will be taxable under section 56. The company may also

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

29 (3), New Delhi & Hon'ble ITAT Hyderabad in case of Jayashree Kothari Vs ITO, Ward - 8 (2), Hyderabad, wherein in similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Tribunals restored the matter back to the AO for a fresh adjudication after referring the matter to the Valuation Officer u/s- 50C (2) of the Act. Copies of both the judgements are attached herewith

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

29,000.00 84,60,929.00 7,64,89,929.00 Total 38,84,38,396.00 52,56,92,612.00 91,41,31,008.00 Copy of assessment orders u/s 143(1)/143(3)/154 for the assessment years 2006- 07 , 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12 has been enclosed from Page No. 03-34 for your perusal.” A.Ys

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

29,000.00 84,60,929.00 7,64,89,929.00 Total 38,84,38,396.00 52,56,92,612.00 91,41,31,008.00 Copy of assessment orders u/s 143(1)/143(3)/154 for the assessment years 2006- 07 , 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12 has been enclosed from Page No. 03-34 for your perusal.” A.Ys

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

29,000.00 84,60,929.00 7,64,89,929.00 Total 38,84,38,396.00 52,56,92,612.00 91,41,31,008.00 Copy of assessment orders u/s 143(1)/143(3)/154 for the assessment years 2006- 07 , 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12 has been enclosed from Page No. 03-34 for your perusal.” A.Ys

DCIT, CIRCLE-II , ALLAHABAD vs. BHARAT PUMPS & COMPRESSORS LTD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital in nature. These are also not illegal payments. Accordingly, additions so made (Rs. 96,26,000+Rs. 29,02,000) are hereby deleted.” 5. Now it was the turn of Revenue to be aggrieved by the decision of ld. CIT(A) allowing assessee’s appeal on this issue and the Revenue has filed this appeal with tribunal. The appeal

DCIT, CIRCLE-II , ALLAHABAD vs. BHARAT PUMPS & COMPRESSORS LTD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital in nature. These are also not illegal payments. Accordingly, additions so made (Rs. 96,26,000+Rs. 29,02,000) are hereby deleted.” 5. Now it was the turn of Revenue to be aggrieved by the decision of ld. CIT(A) allowing assessee’s appeal on this issue and the Revenue has filed this appeal with tribunal. The appeal

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

29 of 2022 is dismissed as withdrawn.” 5. Thus, the delay in filing the present appeal upto 30.06.2022 is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, the appeals filed on 01.07.2022 are admitted as valid appeals for adjudication on merits. 6. For the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. That

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

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

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

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