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

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

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

6,80,29,000.00 84,60,929.00 7,64,89,929.00 Total 38,84,38,396.00 52,56,92,612.00 91,41,31,008.00 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

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

6,80,29,000.00 84,60,929.00 7,64,89,929.00 Total 38,84,38,396.00 52,56,92,612.00 91,41,31,008.00 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

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

6,80,29,000.00 84,60,929.00 7,64,89,929.00 Total 38,84,38,396.00 52,56,92,612.00 91,41,31,008.00 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

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