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(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

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

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.

capital gains tax had been paid. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the details of all immovable properties and sources of investments. On 5.04.2021, the assessee furnished details wherein the total investment in the aforesaid property was shown as Rs.1,25,73,180/-. This discrepancy in the consideration price that was admitted

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

SUCHITRA TANDON,PRAYAGRAJ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE - 2 ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Capital Gain. The assessee had sold an open land during the assessment year under consideration and claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act. The contention of the Assessing Officer is that section 54 of the Act speaks of residential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head, "income from house property'. The said residential house could be consisting

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

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 or add or delete any ground of appeal.” 6. Since assessment year 2014-15 is the first assessment year

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

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 or add or delete any ground of appeal.” 6. Since assessment year 2014-15 is the first assessment year

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

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 or add or delete any ground of appeal.” 6. Since assessment year 2014-15 is the first assessment year