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

6,54,93,137/- was added to the total income of the assessee and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. 7.6 Moving on the AO further observed that certain funds and grants shown under the head under Schedule 3 of the balance-sheet were not being added to the total income of the assessee. He, therefore, asked

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

6,54,93,137/- was added to the total income of the assessee and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. 7.6 Moving on the AO further observed that certain funds and grants shown under the head under Schedule 3 of the balance-sheet were not being added to the total income of the assessee. He, therefore, asked

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.

6. The ld. CIT(A) duly considered the arguments of the assessee and on the various issues raised before him, he ruled as under:- a. That house tax was allowable to the assessee whether the income was assessed to tax either as income from business or income from house property. Accordingly, the ld. AO was directed to allow the deduction

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

2) was issued beyond the time limit prescribed in the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. BECAUSE no "Satisfaction" was recorded by the assessing officer to meet the requirement of law before invoking the provision of section 153C In the case of appellant thereby the assessment order dated 19th March, 2016 should have been quashed by the Id. CIT(Appeals

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

2) was issued beyond the time limit prescribed in the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. BECAUSE no "Satisfaction" was recorded by the assessing officer to meet the requirement of law before invoking the provision of section 153C In the case of appellant thereby the assessment order dated 19th March, 2016 should have been quashed by the Id. CIT(Appeals

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

6,36,266/- and a long term capital loss of Rs. 2,97,227/- was declared. But on the perusal of the sale deeds (two separately, for commercial and for residential property respectively), it was seen that the sales were made for a total consideration of Rs, 42,00,000/- (25,00,000+17,000,000), but the valuation

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

6 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ganga Nursing Home v. DCIT, Range-1, Allahabad limits of Allahabad. The final report submitted by the SDM Karchana to the A.O. has also reference to the application submitted by Smt. Maya Gupta, the partner of the firm. This report has been signed by the concerned revenue authorities which includes the member of survey team

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 and 5 Sri Brajesh Agrawal income from other sources declared by the assessee. Thus, the total income of the assessee was computed by CPC at Rs. 16,98,990/- as against the declared income of Rs. 1,77,930/-. On careful perusal of the intimation of processing of return of income by the CPC 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

2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in making the addition of Rs. 6,39,33,174 received as interest on advances given to contractors for construction work because the said receipts are inextricably linked with plant set up activities and hence is in the nature of Capital Receipt and are being set off against Expenditure during construction period, This

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

6. Because your appellant requests your permission to add, modify or rectify any grounds of appeal late or before hearing of the case. 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed the return on 09.01.2016, showing total income of Rs.2,03,640/-. Thereafter, on 10.01.2016, he revised his return and declared a total income of Rs.3

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

2 Long Term 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

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)

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 became

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

6 SOT 721) squarely applicable to this case. 2. The Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.2,77,46,675/- under section 54 of the Act, observing as follows:- "The property at 10, Kendal Steps St. George Field, London W22YE has been purchased from the fund partly borrowed by the assessee in London since 1995 and is working there

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

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

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. 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