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

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

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. 13.2 The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that

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

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. 13.2 The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that

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

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. 13.2 The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that

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

56 taxmann.com 315 (Delhi). vi. Sri Pattabhiram vs. Income-tax Officer, Kakinada [2014] 45 taxmann.com 141. vii. CWT vs. Dr. H. Rahman, [1991] 55 taxman 408 (Allahabad). Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid judgments, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. The assessee is aggrieved with the said dismissal of his appeal and is before