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

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

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

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

3) of the 1961 Act. The assessee has sold land during the year under consideration and disputes have arisen between the rival parties , as to the chargeability to tax of gains arising on the sale of land as to the whether the said land is a capital asset within the inclusive definition of Section 2(14) , and also

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

3 Shobha Rastogi provisions of section 149(1) are not applicable in the case of the assessee when the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued much prior to the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year under consideration. He has pointed that the decisions relied upon by the learned

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

house property and the exemption available u/s 54 of the Act should be provided to the appellant assessee. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept this contention of the assessee and held that the sale deed produced by the appellant assessee shows that the property transferred is the open land and without any building. Hence, the provisions of section

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)

3 out houses bearing Nos. 42/9/1, 39/9/3 & 38/9/4 which are situated at plot no. 6 Rajapur, Bandhwa, Allahabad. The total area of land was of 2593.58 Sq. Meter. Shri Narain Das Majumdar was the lessee of this property vide lease deed dated 18.10.1937 executed by the then Collector of Allahabad. Shri Narain Das Majumdar died on 31.10.1983 hence legal heirs

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

house property, it can also set up another line of business, it may even pay dividends out of this income to its shareholders. There is no overriding title of anybody diverting the income at source to pay the amount to the creditors of the company. It is well-settled that tax is attracted at the point when the income

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

section 40A(3) of the Act, it was submitted that these were made after office hours at various sites. Regarding the difference in amount of bank guarantee and commission as reported by the Bank, the assessee submitted that the guarantees were taken from Bank of Baroda, Main Branch, Allahabad and the fees were collected by them from the bank account

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

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

house property at Rs. 7,88,200/- after claiming the deduction under section 24(a) of the Income Tax Act. The assesse has also declared income from other sources being interest from saving bank account, interest from FDR, other item and dividend from shares total amounting to Rs. 3

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

house has been made outside India, the assessee has not fulfilled the basic requirement of availing the benefit under section 54 of the I.T Act, and, therefore, the benefit of deduction u/s 54 is denied." 3. The ld. CIT(A), by virtue of the impugned order, has deleted the addition, by holding as under: “The preponderance of judicial view

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

properties which was otherwise allowable while telescoping the addition made to the extent of Rs. 21,82,000.00. 14. Because without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, Sec. 68 does not apply to the facts of the appellant since for applicability of Section 68, the amount should be found credited in the books of accounts of the appellant

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

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

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

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