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

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

36 filed with tribunal.The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) should have called for remand report from AO before rejecting the contentions of the assessee. 13.2 The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the matteris required to be set aside to the file of Assessing Officer for verification of the contentions of assessee. 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

36 filed with tribunal.The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) should have called for remand report from AO before rejecting the contentions of the assessee. 13.2 The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the matteris required to be set aside to the file of Assessing Officer for verification of the contentions of assessee. 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

36 filed with tribunal.The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) should have called for remand report from AO before rejecting the contentions of the assessee. 13.2 The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the matteris required to be set aside to the file of Assessing Officer for verification of the contentions of assessee. A.Ys

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

gain by applying the provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer has not quantified the income assessable to tax that has escaped assessment while recording the reasons for reopening of the assessment. Therefore, in the absence of the quantification of the income at the time of recording the reasons, the Assessing Officer was not having

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 earned by assessee had escaped assessment , which had led to reopening of the concluded assessment by Revenue within the provisions of Section 147/148 of the 1961 Act. The income of the assessee as re-assessed by ld. Assessing Officer( hereinafter called “ the AO”) , to the tune of Rs. 36,84,950/-, vide reassessment order dated 24.06.2016 , which reassessment

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

36 months. The buyer got the possession of all the plant and machinery on the date of agreement and running his business. The AO relied upon the provisions of section 2(47) and observed that the assessee has transferred whole plant and handed over possession alongwith plant Shri Ramesh Chandra Vaish v. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad, U.P. ITA Nos.59

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

36 months. The buyer got the possession of all the plant and machinery on the date of agreement and running his business. The AO relied upon the provisions of section 2(47) and observed that the assessee has transferred whole plant and handed over possession alongwith plant Shri Ramesh Chandra Vaish v. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad, U.P. ITA Nos.59

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

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

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

2), Saharanpur and ACIT vs. Harpreet Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd,. He also relied on Income Tax Officer vs. Kaaddu Jaygyhosh Appasaheb. It was further submitted that charging the same to tax in the manner provided under section 115BBE were incorrect and needed to be deleted. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the following decisions to hold that the valuation