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

property and the AO had concluded that these discounts and reservations on allotment gave undue preferential treatment to the employees who were specified persons in section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, thereby violating section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act. The learned CIT(A) held that since the order of the U.P. Government dated 17.12.1999 applied

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.

section 133A(3)(ia) of the Act. A return of income was filed on 10.10.2013 disclosing total income of Rs.1,62,63,120/- of which business income of Rs.1,12,95,684/-, income from house property of Rs.25,86,697/- and income from other sources of Rs.25,11

M/S. SUBHASH STONE INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NAINITAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Housing Development Company Vs. DCIT Central Circle-I, Bangalore in ITA No. 38/2014 dated 25.07.2014 wherein the Hon’ble Court held that the assessing authority shall determine the total income of the assessee taking into consideration the materials which was the subject matter of earlier return and the undisclosed income unearthed during search and also any other income which comes

M/S GANGA NURSING HOME,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

11 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ganga Nursing Home v. DCIT, Range-1, Allahabad the assessee for impugned ay: 2008-09 was selected for framing scrutiny assessment by the AO under the provisions of Section 143(2) read with Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act. The assessee has sold land during the year under consideration and disputes have arisen between

SHOBHA RASTOGI,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Shobha Rastogi, V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 30-A, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Tax, Circle-1, Allahabad, U.P. Allahabad, U.P. Pan-Afqpr4774R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.2021

house of property in question. However, the assessee claimed that the sale was not concluded in the assessment year 2007-08 but it was concluded in the assessment year 2008-09. The Assessing Officer did not proceed to assess the income arisen from the sale of the property in question and consequentially the assessment for the assessment year

BRAJESH AGRAWAL,PRAYAGRAJ vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2021-22 Brajesh Agrawal, V. Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru 3/15, Patrika Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad, U.P. Pan-Acbpa3797R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Saurabh Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.03.2023 O R D E R

11,26,000.00 Interest on PPF 3,41,127.00 Interest on S.B. A/c 30,185.00 Interest on FDR 2,771.32 Dividend Received 4,713.89 Interest on Bonds 16,260.00 Total (Rs.) 15,21,057.21 without considering the fact that aforesaid sum/income had already been offered to taxation by the appellant in his original return of income filed under section

MEJA URJA NIGAM (P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD-2 (2), ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for ay: 2015-16 and 2016-17

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

3) of the 1961 Act and admit both these appeals for ay: Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively, to be now adjudicated on merits. We order accordingly. ITA No. 54/Alld/2020- Assessment Year- 2015-16 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Public Sector Undertaking which

M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Deora Electric Works V. The Jcit 58-A, Sardar Patel Marg Range – I Allahabad Allahabad Pan:Aadfd7479B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 03 2025 O R D E R

properties of the firm, they were used by the firm for business purposes and ITA No.637/ALLD/2014 Page 8 of 21 hence the expenditure had been claimed. Regarding payment of electricity and telephone on account of partners, Shri Pawan Kumar Deora and Shri Ashok Kumar Deora, it was submitted that a part of their house was used for office premises

MADHURENDRA NATH,ALLAHABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Smt. Neeta Nath, L/H Of Lt. Dr. Jitendra Nath Income Tax, Central Circle, Civil Lines, Allahabad B/401, Mayan Enclave, 49/13, Clive Road, Allahabad Pan-Abepn1795Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhurendra Nath, Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-502, Vinayak Le Grande, Income Tax, Central Circle, 16/12, Lal Bahadur Shastri Civil Lines, Allahabad Road, Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aaipn8161D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, Adv Respondent By: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2023 O R D E R Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M.: These Two Appeals By The Two Related Assessees Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 28.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. These Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 153C In Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Action Under Section 132(1) Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 05.12.2013 In The Case Of Shri. Hemant Kumar Sindhi. Therefore, The Facts & Circumstances As Well As The Grounds Of Appeal

property was happened between M/s H.K. Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Shri Hemant Kumar Sindhi and with Dinesh Kumar Pahuja President of Sindhu Sahkari Avas Samiti and the contrary view taken by the Id. CIT(Appeals) to confirm the addition in the hands of appellant is wholly illegal and erroneous. 8. BECAUSE there was no business dealings with Dinesh

SMT. NEETA NATH L/H OF LATE DR. JITENDRA NATH,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Smt. Neeta Nath, L/H Of Lt. Dr. Jitendra Nath Income Tax, Central Circle, Civil Lines, Allahabad B/401, Mayan Enclave, 49/13, Clive Road, Allahabad Pan-Abepn1795Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhurendra Nath, Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-502, Vinayak Le Grande, Income Tax, Central Circle, 16/12, Lal Bahadur Shastri Civil Lines, Allahabad Road, Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aaipn8161D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Siddharth Pathak, Adv Respondent By: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2023 O R D E R Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M.: These Two Appeals By The Two Related Assessees Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 28.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. These Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 153C In Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Action Under Section 132(1) Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 05.12.2013 In The Case Of Shri. Hemant Kumar Sindhi. Therefore, The Facts & Circumstances As Well As The Grounds Of Appeal

property was happened between M/s H.K. Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Shri Hemant Kumar Sindhi and with Dinesh Kumar Pahuja President of Sindhu Sahkari Avas Samiti and the contrary view taken by the Id. CIT(Appeals) to confirm the addition in the hands of appellant is wholly illegal and erroneous. 8. BECAUSE there was no business dealings with Dinesh

DHIRENDRA SINGH,MIRZAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(1), MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Dhirendra Singh V. Income Tax Officer Mangraha, Chunar Ward 3(1) Mirzapur Mirzapur Pan:Bipps5569C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Brij Bhushan Goenka, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 03 2025

3 of 11 A.R. of the assessee could offer no explanation in this regard. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had shown increase in capital account of Rs.1,15,69,573/- as compared to assessment year 2014-15 (where no capital amount was shown) and since explanation was not offered, the Assessing Officer concluded that the increase in capital

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

House, G.T. Road, v. Fatehpur, U.P. Khaga, Fatehpur- 212655, U.P. PAN:AHCPG3595K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rajeev Kumar Agrawal, Advocate Respondent by: Shri A.K. Singh ,Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 20.03.2023 Date of pronouncement: 20 .03.2023 O R D E R PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal, filed by assessee, being ITA No.19/Alld./2023, is directed against

DEVENDRA SINGH,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, RANGE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Devendra Singh, The Deputy Commissioner Of 166A, Puravaldi Kydganj, V. Income Tax, Range-1, Allahabad, Allahabad-211003,U.P. U.P. Pan:Aexps6329H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.09.2023 O R D E R

property was made from undisclosed sources as alleged hence the addition made on conjecture and surmises by then assessing officer is highly unjustified. 7. That in any view of the matter interest charge under different section by assessing officer is highly unjustified.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his original return of income

I.T.O., WARD-1(4), ALLAHABAD vs. RAGHAV WADHAWAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer V. Shri Raghav Wadhawan Ward 1(4) C-51, 3Rd Floor Allahabad Friends Colony New Delhi Tan/Pan:Aaopw9056A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S. K. Madhuk, Cit (Dr) Respondent By: Shri Ashok Kumar, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 20 11 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 11 2019 O R D E R

11 2019 O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: This is Revenue’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Allahabad, dated 7/6/2017 for assessment year 2012-13, taking the following grounds: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in allowing

AHMAD HUSSAIN KHAN,,MIRZAPUR vs. ITO,, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

11. Because the appellant has established the identity, capacity genuineness of the transaction for payment of advance money received from M/s. Avtar Chemist but an adverse and contrary view have been taken by the authorities below merely on the basis of ulterior considerations which is not warranted in law. 12. Because the ld. CIT(A) as well

M/S. GOVIND STONE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HAMIRPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -5(4), BANDA

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

house, 4 Faile Place, Notice Served Private Limited 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700001 2 AprajitaVanijya 7A, Bentinck Street, Insufficient address, Private Limited Kolkata-700001 hence returned to sender Zigzag Vanijya 146/2, Old China Bazar, No mention floor 3 Private Limited Kolkata-700001 R/No. hence R. to sender 4 ShradhaVintrade 9/12, Lal Bazar, 2nd Floor, Insufficient address, Private Limited Kolkata-700001 hence

KAMLA DEVI,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11 V. Joint Commissioner Of Smt. Parvati Devi L/H Late Kamla Devi, Sahson, Allahabad, Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad U.P. Pan-Bfrpd6086G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None (Application) Respondent By: Sh. Rabin Chaudhari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.03.2023 O R D E R

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for last so many years wherein the assessee has been declaring the income ranging from Rs. 18 to 28 lacs. Therefore, the availability of cash of Rs. 6,70,000/- was not abnormal or excess in view of the past income declared by the assessee. He has thus pleaded that the addition

SHAKUN DEVI,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kochara.Y. 2010-11 Shakun Devi, Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Sahson, Allahabad Income Tax, Central Pan-Adapk7419E Circle, Allahabad (Assessee) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.01.2023 O R D E R

house property, commercial assets were exempt and even the limit of other assets was raised to 15 lacs (for the asst. yr. 1993-94 to 2009-10) and thereafter, by and large even the assessees, who were furnishing returns prior to 1st April. 1992, in view of the drastic amendment made under the WT Act. chose not to file