UMA SHANKER AILANI,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao`

section 250 and 154 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14. 2. Assessee is an individual and derives income from house property

UMA SHANKER AILANI,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao`

section 250 and 154 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14. 2. Assessee is an individual and derives income from house property

UMA SHANKER AILANI,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao`

section 250 and 154 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14. 2. Assessee is an individual and derives income from house property

UMA SHANKER AILANI,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao`

section 250 and 154 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14. 2. Assessee is an individual and derives income from house property

UMA SHANKER AILANI,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao`

section 250 and 154 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14. 2. Assessee is an individual and derives income from house property

UMA SHANKER AILANI,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao`

section 250 and 154 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14. 2. Assessee is an individual and derives income from house property

UMA SHANKER AILANI,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao`

section 250 and 154 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14. 2. Assessee is an individual and derives income from house property

UMA SHANKER AILANI,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao`

section 250 and 154 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14. 2. Assessee is an individual and derives income from house property

UMA SHANKER AILANI,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao`

section 250 and 154 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14. 2. Assessee is an individual and derives income from house property

UMA SHANKER AILANI,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao`

section 250 and 154 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14. 2. Assessee is an individual and derives income from house property

UMA SHANKER AILANI,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao`

section 250 and 154 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14. 2. Assessee is an individual and derives income from house property

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 as it was personal residential asset and not business asset. The evidences are not filed with Tribunal by the assesse , as no paper book is filed by the assessee. The assessee has raised as many as eight grounds of appeal, of which Ground No. 4 deals with that ld. CIT(A) has passed an exparte order without giving sufficient

MOHAMMAD SAHADAT ALI,FATEHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result, appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.138, 139,147 & 148/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sayyad Nagar, Khakhreru, National Faceless Assessment Khaga, Fatehpur Centre Pan:Cunpa0977K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. Shivang, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Four Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vide Separate Orders Dated 8.07.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal In All These Cases Are Identical & Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac). Delhi U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) (Nfac) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant On The Grounds Of Non-Submission Of Documents By The Appellant Without Considering The Submitted Document & The Facts Of The Case. The Appellant, Therefore, Prays That The Impugned Order Be Set Aside. A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali

property and an affidavit from the true owner is attached herewith for your Honors perusal. The impugned order is against the principles of natural justice and is therefore liable to be quashed. 5. That the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in law and on the facts of the case in invoking section 69 r.w. section 115BBE

MOHAMMAD SAHADAT ALI,FATEHPUR vs. AO NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.138, 139,147 & 148/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sayyad Nagar, Khakhreru, National Faceless Assessment Khaga, Fatehpur Centre Pan:Cunpa0977K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. Shivang, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Four Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vide Separate Orders Dated 8.07.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal In All These Cases Are Identical & Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac). Delhi U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) (Nfac) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant On The Grounds Of Non-Submission Of Documents By The Appellant Without Considering The Submitted Document & The Facts Of The Case. The Appellant, Therefore, Prays That The Impugned Order Be Set Aside. A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali

property and an affidavit from the true owner is attached herewith for your Honors perusal. The impugned order is against the principles of natural justice and is therefore liable to be quashed. 5. That the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in law and on the facts of the case in invoking section 69 r.w. section 115BBE

MOHAMMAD SAHADAT ALI,FATEHPUR vs. AO NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.138, 139,147 & 148/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sayyad Nagar, Khakhreru, National Faceless Assessment Khaga, Fatehpur Centre Pan:Cunpa0977K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. Shivang, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Four Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vide Separate Orders Dated 8.07.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal In All These Cases Are Identical & Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac). Delhi U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) (Nfac) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant On The Grounds Of Non-Submission Of Documents By The Appellant Without Considering The Submitted Document & The Facts Of The Case. The Appellant, Therefore, Prays That The Impugned Order Be Set Aside. A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali

property and an affidavit from the true owner is attached herewith for your Honors perusal. The impugned order is against the principles of natural justice and is therefore liable to be quashed. 5. That the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in law and on the facts of the case in invoking section 69 r.w. section 115BBE

MOHAMMAD SAHADAT ALI,FATEHPUR vs. AO (NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE), DELHI

In the result, appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.138, 139,147 & 148/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sayyad Nagar, Khakhreru, National Faceless Assessment Khaga, Fatehpur Centre Pan:Cunpa0977K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Aditya Chhajed & Sh. Shivang, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Four Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vide Separate Orders Dated 8.07.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal In All These Cases Are Identical & Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac). Delhi U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) (Nfac) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant On The Grounds Of Non-Submission Of Documents By The Appellant Without Considering The Submitted Document & The Facts Of The Case. The Appellant, Therefore, Prays That The Impugned Order Be Set Aside. A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Sahadat Ali

property and an affidavit from the true owner is attached herewith for your Honors perusal. The impugned order is against the principles of natural justice and is therefore liable to be quashed. 5. That the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in law and on the facts of the case in invoking section 69 r.w. section 115BBE

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

property for which her son-in-law had taken the amount from her and also failed to produce her son-in-law for examination before the AO for examination. 9 Smt. Parvati Devi L/H Late Kamla Devi Further, the AO stated that the cash amounting to Rs 700,000/- was not available with the appellant in the month of June

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

properties in that area, there are costs associated with the implementation of that particular development scheme which is to be incurred by the authority and if the said costs are recouped from the property owners of that area, it will not make the authority a commercial enterprise existing for profits, even if some surplus is generated on that count

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

properties in that area, there are costs associated with the implementation of that particular development scheme which is to be incurred by the authority and if the said costs are recouped from the property owners of that area, it will not make the authority a commercial enterprise existing for profits, even if some surplus is generated on that count