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

36,145/- under the various funds & grants received which had not been routed through the Income and Expenditure Account and could not have been added to the surplus as per Income and Expenditure Account as the appellant did not have any right, title or interest of its own in the said sum and the same had not accrued

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

36,145/- under the various funds & grants received which had not been routed through the Income and Expenditure Account and could not have been added to the surplus as per Income and Expenditure Account as the appellant did not have any right, title or interest of its own in the said sum and the same had not accrued

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

36,145/- under the various funds & grants received which had not been routed through the Income and Expenditure Account and could not have been added to the surplus as per Income and Expenditure Account as the appellant did not have any right, title or interest of its own in the said sum and the same had not accrued

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

section 144 only). 1.1 The ld. AO made the following three additions as under: a. Capital gains Rs. 36,21,000/-. 1 A.Y. 2009-10 Smt. Ranjana Bajpai b. Donation receipt Rs.2,00,000/-. c. Unexplained cash deposit Rs.10,50,000/-. 2. Aggrieved with this action of ld. AO, the appellant approached the ld. CIT(A) challenging all the three

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

III, Lucknow (hereinafter called "the CIT(A)"),for assessment year(ay): 2014-15, the appellate proceedings had arisen before learned CIT(A) from the assessment order dated 23.12.2016 passed by learned Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 and Secondly being ITA No.100/ALLD/2019 for assessment year 2015-16, is directed against an appellate order dated

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

III, Lucknow (hereinafter called "the CIT(A)"),for assessment year(ay): 2014-15, the appellate proceedings had arisen before learned CIT(A) from the assessment order dated 23.12.2016 passed by learned Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 and Secondly being ITA No.100/ALLD/2019 for assessment year 2015-16, is directed against an appellate order dated

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

iii. Avantha Realty Ltd. vs. ACIT [2022] 139 taxmann.com 127 (Delhi). iv. Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh vs. ITO [2019] 101 taxman.com 93 (Pune-Trib). v. CIT vs. Narinder Kr. Budhiraja [2015] 56 taxmann.com 315 (Delhi). vi. Sri Pattabhiram vs. Income-tax Officer, Kakinada [2014] 45 taxmann.com 141. vii. CWT vs. Dr. H. Rahman, [1991] 55 taxman 408 (Allahabad). Therefore

SUCHITRA TANDON,PRAYAGRAJ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE - 2 ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

36,970/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.82,82,550/- after making an addition of Rs.68,45,580/- under the head I.T.A. No.10/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 2 Long Term Capital Gain. The assessee had sold an open land during the assessment year under consideration and claimed exemption