ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

bogus expenditure as the income of the trust was not chargeable to tax on account of the availability of exemption under section 11. Furthermore, in assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, no such disallowance had been made. It was further submitted that in the case of the assessee, a search and seizure proceeding had been

KHANDELWAL SOYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,RAMPUR vs. ACIT(CENTERAL), BAREILLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the\nterms indicated hereinbefore

bogus\nexpenses. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned additions may\nbe sustained. However, he could not rebut the contention of the\nLd. Counsel for the assessee that the impugned additions are not\nbased upon any incriminating documents gathered during the\ncourse of search.\n\n6. We have heard the rival contention and perused the\nmaterials available on record. The issue

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

purchased by trust from persons covered u/s 13(3) for more than adequate consideration; f. Any property is sold by trust to persons covered u/s 13(3) for consideration less than adequate; g. Funds of the trust exceeding 1000/- has been diverted; h. Funds of the trust have been invested in the institutions wherein persons covered

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

purchased by trust from persons covered u/s 13(3) for more than adequate consideration; f. Any property is sold by trust to persons covered u/s 13(3) for consideration less than adequate; g. Funds of the trust exceeding 1000/- has been diverted; h. Funds of the trust have been invested in the institutions wherein persons covered

KASHI NATH SETH SARRAF PRIVATE LIMITED,HARDOI vs. ACIT, SITAPUR, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

234B of the\nAct, which are not leviable on the facts of the instant case.”\n\n(A.1) The assessee has also raised the following additional grounds:\n\nADDITIONAL GROUNDS\n(1) That the notice u/s 143(2) of IT Act dated 21/09/2018 was issued by 'ITO-\n3(2), Hardoi-1.' who does not hold inherent jurisdiction to issue notice