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

8 appeals of different Development Authorities and thereby denying exemption of section 11. (2) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in confirming denial of exemption u/s section 11. (3) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of net excess of income over expenditure of Rs.3

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

8 Girdhar Gopal Rastogi a) Cases where value of international transaction as defined u/s 92B of IT Act exceeds Rs. 15 crores. b) Cases involving addition in an earlier assessment year on the issue of 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

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

transferring title in favour of the hirer. On the other hand, if the hirer does not exercise his option, then the goods in question must be returned and the payments so far made are treated to be rentals. Therefore, the whole concept is with regard to payment of consideration money or rental not repayment of loan amount in financial transaction

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. 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

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

8. It is apparent from the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening of the assessment that the factum of 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

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

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

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

transferred by the bank in short term MODs Accounts in accordance with the account terms and conditions. The said MODs were reversed automatically as and when the assesses withdrew the amounts From account. There was no intention to earn any interest on such funds. The funds were kept in liquid so as to use them as and when required, since