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

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

43,28,383, while the correct figure is Rs. 52,56,92,612/- and prayers were made that correct figures should be considered , although the assessee did not revise Form No. 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

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

43,28,383, while the correct figure is Rs. 52,56,92,612/- and prayers were made that correct figures should be considered , although the assessee did not revise Form No. 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

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

43,28,383, while the correct figure is Rs. 52,56,92,612/- and prayers were made that correct figures should be considered , although the assessee did not revise Form No. 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

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

M.K. AGRAWAL & CO.,SONEBHADRA vs. ACIT RANGE-III, MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2010-11 M.K. Agrawal & Co., V. Acit, Range-Ii, Mirzapur Sonebhadra

Capital Ltd. (a NBFC) under the hire purchase agreement. It is also not in dispute that the assessee has not acquired any title for ownership of the asset under the hire purchase agreement but the assessee is under no obligation to buy the asset. Thus, it is only an option with the assessee either to return the goods

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

43,047/- to taxation. 3. BECAUSE the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in distinguishing the following series of judgments which fully cover the issue of eligibility of exemption under section 11 and non applicability of provision to section 2(15) :- a) judgment and order dated 10.11.2006, the objects for attainment of which the appellant/Authority had come

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

43,047/- to taxation. 3. BECAUSE the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in distinguishing the following series of judgments which fully cover the issue of eligibility of exemption under section 11 and non applicability of provision to section 2(15) :- a) judgment and order dated 10.11.2006, the objects for attainment of which the appellant/Authority had come

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

43,047/- to taxation. 3. BECAUSE the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in distinguishing the following series of judgments which fully cover the issue of eligibility of exemption under section 11 and non applicability of provision to section 2(15) :- a) judgment and order dated 10.11.2006, the objects for attainment of which the appellant/Authority had come