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

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.2012-13 & 2013-14 12.2 The ld. CIT(A) was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee vide appellate order

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

1 A.Y. 2014-15 Arup Banerji (d) of section 43(5) which is excluded from the definition of 'speculative transaction' with effect from 01.04.2006. 4. BECAUSE the appellant has rightly set-off the losses from derivative trading brought forward from assessment year 2008-09 against the current year income from derivative trading. 5. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary

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

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 GAINS- (i) Sales Consideration - Rs. 5,00,000.00 (ii) Stamp Duty Valuation - Rs. 15,78,000.00 (iii) Cost of Acquisition- .5260x2,80,000/1.3350-Rs.1,10,332.00 (iv) Indexed Cost of Acquisition( 2001-02) =1,10332x426/389- Rs.1,20,815.00 (v) As per New calculation of Indexed Cost- 1,20.815x264/100= Rs. 3,18,953.00 (vi) LONG TERM CAPITALGAINS

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

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