ARUP BANERJI,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Arup Banerji, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 14/18, Elgin Road, Allahabad Income Tax, Circle-1, Allahabad Pan:Acupb7330A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 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), Nfac Dismissing His Appeal Against The Order Of The Dcit, Circle-1, Allahabad Passed On 30.12.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That Appellant Does Not Want To Pursue The Appeal & Dismissing Appeal Ex- Party Without Affording An Adequate & Effective Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Allowing The Set-Off Of Loss From Derivative Trading Of Rs. 66,05,524/- Brought Forward From Assessment Year 2008-09 Against The Current Year Income Of Rs. 60,19,056/- Earned From Derivative Trading. 3. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Wrongly Conceived The Fact That Appellant Has Brought Forward Loss From Trading In 'Commodity Derivatives' As Per Clause (E) Of Section 43(5) Whereas The Appellant Has Brought Forward Loss From Trading In 'Derivative' As Per Clause

gains of derivative trading in the case of M/s Niramal Bang Securities Ltd., where short term capital loss of Rs.1,19,559/- had been set off and 2 A.Y. 2014-15 Arup Banerji since the same was capital loss, it could not be set off cannot be allowed for as adjustment from derivative trading. He, therefore, computed the income from

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 gain on stamp duty value which is totally arbitrary and against law and fact. 4. That the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) erred not to consider that the learned assessing officer erred not to consider the reply dated 05.11.19 in response to notice dated 01.11.19 under section

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital gain during the year in question is highly unjustified, illegal and against the settled law, hence on these count the addition so made & maintained is liable to be deleted. 4-That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs. 1,80,000/- on account of gift received by the assessee from a genuine party

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital gain during the year in question is highly unjustified, illegal and against the settled law, hence on these count the addition so made & maintained is liable to be deleted. 4-That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs. 1,80,000/- on account of gift received by the assessee from a genuine party

DR. AROTI GHOSH,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2008-09

capital gains, vide reassessment order dated 31.03.2016 passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 148 of the 1961 Act. 2 A.Y. 2008-09 Dr. Aroti Ghosh 4

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(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

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

4,88,272/- and agriculture income of Rs. 75,200/-(for rate purposes). The case was selected by Revenue for framing limited scrutiny. The assessee derives income from Rainbow Builders as a partner of the firm and capital gain. The reason for selection of case under limited scrutiny was that sale consideration of the property declared in ITR was less

MOHD UBAID ANSARI,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, ALLAHABAD , ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Mohd Ubaid Ansari V. The Income Tax Department 337, Sultanpur Bhawa (Faceless) Noorulla Road Khuldabad Allahabad (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bajpa0699B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R

Capital Gain”. The AO completed the assessment under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.39,99,466/-. 2.3 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 2.4 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal

AROTI GHOSH,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

gain arising from the transfer of a long term capital assets being equity shares in a company is exempted under section 10(38) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 9. BECAUSE the NFAC has erred in law and on facts in sustaining addition of Rs.4,23,000/- made by invoking the provision of section 69 on account of net receipts

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

4) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.36,68,20,842/- for Grants and Funds received. (5) Because the order of the CIT(A) is generally bad both on facts and in law. AYs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 (6) Because the assessee reserves the right to rescind

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

4) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.36,68,20,842/- for Grants and Funds received. (5) Because the order of the CIT(A) is generally bad both on facts and in law. AYs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 (6) Because the assessee reserves the right to rescind

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

4) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.36,68,20,842/- for Grants and Funds received. (5) Because the order of the CIT(A) is generally bad both on facts and in law. AYs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 (6) Because the assessee reserves the right to rescind

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

4 A.Y. 2011-12 Mr. Devendra Singh, Allahabad has claimed benefit of indexed cost of acquisition as well as exemption under section 54 of the Act. The AO observed that during the course of assessment proceedings, no queries were raised regarding the new asset. The notice under section 148 was claimed to have been issued by AO with prior approval

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.

4. The assessee had also purchased an immovable property bearing no. 141A/33A/3 M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad vide a registered sale deed during the course of the year, i.e. on 9.07.2017. The amount of consideration mentioned in the registered sale deed was Rs. 1,15,00,000/-. However, during the survey under section 133A, it came to light that

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

capital gains to account for purchase price, as against the action of the ld. AO who is seen to have added the entire sale consideration. Regarding the alleged donation of Rs.2,00,000/-, the ld. CIT(A) was not convinced of the bona fides of the claim and hence upheld the action of the ld. AO. Lastly, regarding the cash