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

143(2) / 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued by the learned AO from time to time. The main question that was addressed by the Assessing Officer, was with regard to the claim of the assessee for grant of exemption under sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is registered under

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

143(2) / 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued by the learned AO from time to time. The main question that was addressed by the Assessing Officer, was with regard to the claim of the assessee for grant of exemption under sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is registered under

GIRDHAR GOPAL RASTOGI,MIRZAPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 3(1), MIRZAPUR

In the result, the additional ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Girdhar Gopal Rastogi, V. Commissioner Of Income Tax Dhundi Katra, Mirzapur, U.P. (Appeal), Allahabad Pan-Aanpr8525N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. R.N. Yadav, Adv & Mr. R.K. Kalyani, C.A. Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.05.2022

143(2) for taking up the case for compulsory scrutiny. The assessee has challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer for taking up the case for compulsory scrutiny on the ground that when there was no impounding of books of accounts during the survey under section 133A of the Act and the assessee declared the income in the return

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

143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the ground no. 1 of assessee’s appeal is de void of any merit and substance and the same is dismissed. 5. Ground no. 3 is regarding validity of initiation of proceedings under section 148 of Income Tax Act. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that while issuing the notice under section

M/S MILLENIUM CONSULTANTS& SERVICE PROVIDERS,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

price to the students , who were interested in persuing the course and registering for studies, but the sale proceeds are not declared in the books of accounts and have escaped assessment. The onus is on the assessee to prove with cogent material/evidences that stock of prospectus held by it is duly accounted for by it and no income has escaped

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)

price or the asset is made to grow better, vide CIT Vs Rama Swami Mudaliar (92) ITA No. 96 ITR 939 (MAD). Onus to prove the cost of improvement is on the assessee that he has incurred the improvement charges before transferring the asset. Section 48 is enabling provision, which permits certain deductions from the sale consideration received

MADHU DUBEY,ALLAHABAD vs. DC/AC-1(1),ALLAHABAD, MG MARG ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 Madhu Dubey V. Dc/Ac-1(1) 657A/1, Jamuna Nagar, Chak Mg Marg, Allahabad- Raghunath, Naini-211008. 211001. Pan:Asipd8489J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.2,02,93,002/- Page 3 of 11 (rounded off to Rs.2,02,93,000/-). In the aforesaid assessment order, the income of the assessee was computed as under: - The assessee filed appeal in the office

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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act") by learned Assessing ITA No.54 and 55/ALLD/2020 Meja Urja Nigam Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Officer(hereinafter called “ the AO”) . We have heard both the parties through video conferencing mode through virtual court. 2. The grounds of appeals raised by assessee in its appeal