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

24,99,43,047/- and in subjecting the same to taxation. 2. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in sustaining the denial of exemption under section 11 read with section 12 of the Act for the reason that the same is hit by first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and other reasons

NEERAJ AGRAWAL,,MIRZAPUR vs. DCIT, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

x 57,800= 1,02,40,657/- 55% of the same 56,32,361/- Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mr. Neeraj Agrwal, Mirzapur, U.P. Addition of Rs. 56,32,361/- Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for concealment of income. (ii) Regarding Gold Jewellery: Plain reading of the submission of the assessee on this issue, as quoted

DCIT CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. SHRI NEERAJ AGRAWAL, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

x 57,800= 1,02,40,657/- 55% of the same 56,32,361/- Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mr. Neeraj Agrwal, Mirzapur, U.P. Addition of Rs. 56,32,361/- Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for concealment of income. (ii) Regarding Gold Jewellery: Plain reading of the submission of the assessee on this issue, as quoted

KESARWANI & CO.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

u/s 153A(1)(b) of the I.T. Act should have been deleted and order quashed and the learned C.I.T.(A) has erred both in law as well as on facts in dismissing grounds No. 1, 2 & 3 as per his order vide para 3 on page 12 of the order. 2. That in view of the fact that detailed explanation

KESARWANI & C0,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

u/s 153A(1)(b) of the I.T. Act should have been deleted and order quashed and the learned C.I.T.(A) has erred both in law as well as on facts in dismissing grounds No. 1, 2 & 3 as per his order vide para 3 on page 12 of the order. 2. That in view of the fact that detailed explanation

KESARWANI & C0.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT., ALLAHABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

u/s 153A(1)(b) of the I.T. Act should have been deleted and order quashed and the learned C.I.T.(A) has erred both in law as well as on facts in dismissing grounds No. 1, 2 & 3 as per his order vide para 3 on page 12 of the order. 2. That in view of the fact that detailed explanation