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

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

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

1,77,930/- after claiming the deductions under sections 80C, 80TTA, 80D and exempt income under section 10 of the Income Tax Act. In the return of income, the assessee has declared business loss of Rs. 7,63,940/- and income from house property of Rs. 7,88,200/-. The assessee has also declared income from other sources

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

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

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

1 the distance to the land in question is precisely 7.800kms.from the municipal limits. The appellant has raised the objections about the 7 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ganga Nursing Home v. DCIT, Range-1, Allahabad measurement of distance taken by revenue authorities without giving any substantial evidence to differ from that. In view of the above discussion, the addition

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

1) of that section provides that in case, interest is paid on share capital issued for the purpose of raising money to defray the expenses of constructing any work or building or the provision of any plant in contingencies mentioned in that section, the sums so paid by way of interest may be charged to capital as part

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

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' under section 22 of the Act. I.T.A. No.10/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 7 (para-7)... The land contiguous to the building may be so vast in its extent that a person can conveniently lay out the surplus extent of land into plots and sell those plots without causing detriment to the proper enjoyment of the building. Could

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

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

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

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

1) of the Act dated 30.08.2017. In response to the notice, the assessee filed a copy of Audit Report, Balance Sheet, profit and loss account and copy of ITR. The Assessing Officer records that when asked to substantiate the issue involved, i.e., “increase in capital”, the ITA No.133/ALLD/2024 Page 3 of 11 A.R. of the assessee could offer no explanation

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

house-hold expenses to the tune of Rs. 1,44,400/- , while the assessee spent Rs. 1,17,447/- on 5 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Shaheen Khan Legal heir of LateMr.Ahmad Hussain Khan, Mirzapur studiesof his children. The AO observed that the assessee’s family comprised of self, wife and two children who are studying. The AO observed that

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