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

section 20(2) of the 1973 Act, mandate that the funds of the authority are to be applied towards meeting the expenses of the authority in the administration of that Act and for no other purpose. iv. The contention of the Revenue that the assessee was a commercial enterprise which had undertaken various civil construction work on behalf of State

M/S. GOVIND STONE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HAMIRPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -5(4), BANDA

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

price (a) Arrived at as per the prescribed method OR (b) as may be substantiated to the assessing officer based on the value of the company at the time of issue of the shares. Also, as per the existing clause (viia) of section 56(2), if the consideration paid for the acquisition of shares (of a closely held company

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

transfer pricing in excess of Rs. 10 Crores or more which is confirmed in appeal or is pending before an appellate authority. c) Cases involving addition in an earlier assessment year in excess of Rs. 10 lacs on a substantial and recurring question of law or fact which is confirmed in appeal or is pending before an appellate authority

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

transfer of property in question by the assessee was 4 Shobha Rastogi already came to the notice of the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2007-08 as the assessee received the advance towards the sale of house of property in question. However, the assessee claimed that the sale was not concluded in the assessment year

M.K. AGRAWAL & CO.,SONEBHADRA vs. ACIT RANGE-III, MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2010-11 M.K. Agrawal & Co., V. Acit, Range-Ii, Mirzapur Sonebhadra

2 M.K. Agrawal & Co., Sonebhadra Assessment Year: 2010-11 financial charges paid under the hire purchase agreement is subjected to TDS u/s 194I of the Income Tax Act. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision of Hyderabad Benches of Tribunal dated 04.03.2014 in the case of ACIT vs. M/s R. Balarami Reddy & Co. in ITA No.2224

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

price paid Rs 1.20,00,000i e. Rs 56 06.000/is added to the income of assessee under provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) (ii) of IT Act,1961. (Addition of Rs.56,06,000/-] 5. The assessee has made capital addition of Rs 2 lacs & Rs 1 lac on 1110/2013 & 31/10/2013 respectively till this date assessee has made withdrawal

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

5 of the 1961 Act and Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited(supra) while rejecting the contentions of the assessee and bringing to tax interest income earned on bank deposits under the head ‘Income from other sources’ under 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)

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

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

ASHA TEWARI,MAHARAJGANJ vs. ITO, 1(4), MAHARAJGANJ

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Asha Tewari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Partawal, Maharajganj, U.P. Maharajganj Pan:Adjpt8320L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Arvind Shukla, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, On 18.03.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. Because The Learned Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Sustaining Addition Of Rs 21,55,000/- U/S 69A Which Actually Represented Receipts From Sale Of Petroleum Products Routed Through The Audited Books Of Accounts. 2. Because The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining Addition Of Rs 21,55,000/- U/S 69A Without Appreciating That The Said Section Is Not Applicable To The Facts Of The Case As The Entries Of Bank Deposits Are Flowing Directly From The Audited Books Of Accounts. 3. Because The Addition Of Rs 21,55,000/- Has Been Made & Sustained Simply On Negative Presumptions, Conjectures & Surmises To The Entire Exclusion Of Facts On Record. 4. Because The Learned Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate That During Demonetization Petrol Pumps Were Exempted From Taking Old Sbn & Hence There Was Nothing Unusual Or Incorrect With All Entries Routed Properly Through Audited Books Of Accounts.” 1 A.Y. 2017-18 Asha Tewari

2 A.Y. 2017-18 Asha Tewari total sales turnover of Rs.11,48,90,684/- and this yielded to average monthly sales of Rs.95,74,224/-. He though concluded that there was an excess turnover of Rs.67,00,776/- in November, 2016. He did record the fact that there had been a regular payment to Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) from