PREM MANOHAR GUPTA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KANPUR

In the result, appeal in I

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

154 of the IT Act, 1961. 2. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not taking cognizance of the facts and submission made before him that the finding made by the Ld.CIT(A) in his order is erroneous and does not relate the appellants case and appellate proceedings. 3. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in recording the finding

M/S STANDARD FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT LTD,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

rectification orders u/s 154 on page 164-179 of PB Vol-1) The Addl.CIT while giving approval to the cases on the same day or next day where the approval were given to 110 cases, failed to apply mind to the facts of the case, the assessment proceeding conducted by the AO, the issue in appraisal, seized documents and replies

KAMAL KANT VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

rectification orders u/s 154 on page 164-179 of PB Vol-1) The Addl.CIT while giving approval to the cases on the same day or next day where the approval were given to 110 cases, failed to apply mind to the facts of the case, the assessment proceeding conducted by the AO, the issue in appraisal, seized documents and replies

SACHIN VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

rectification orders u/s 154 on page 164-179 of PB Vol-1) The Addl.CIT while giving approval to the cases on the same day or next day where the approval were given to 110 cases, failed to apply mind to the facts of the case, the assessment proceeding conducted by the AO, the issue in appraisal, seized documents and replies

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of survey carried out on assessee. In these two years, there is no issue of commission on sales and the only issue involved in these two years, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of same statement, which has been recorded u/s 133A of the Act. During assessment year

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of survey carried out on assessee. In these two years, there is no issue of commission on sales and the only issue involved in these two years, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of same statement, which has been recorded u/s 133A of the Act. During assessment year

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

rectification applications u/s 154 of the I.T. Act and therefore, the learned CIT(A) passed further order u/s 154 of the Act and the other grounds of appeal were dismissed having become infructuous. The appeals in I.T.A. No.23 & 24 are against such rectified orders passed by learned CIT(A). The Revenue has filed appeals against both orders of learned

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

rectification applications u/s 154 of the I.T. Act and therefore, the learned CIT(A) passed further order u/s 154 of the Act and the other grounds of appeal were dismissed having become infructuous. The appeals in I.T.A. No.23 & 24 are against such rectified orders passed by learned CIT(A). The Revenue has filed appeals against both orders of learned

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

rectification applications u/s 154 of the I.T. Act and therefore, the learned CIT(A) passed further order u/s 154 of the Act and the other grounds of appeal were dismissed having become infructuous. The appeals in I.T.A. No.23 & 24 are against such rectified orders passed by learned CIT(A). The Revenue has filed appeals against both orders of learned

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

rectification applications u/s 154 of the I.T. Act and therefore, the learned CIT(A) passed further order u/s 154 of the Act and the other grounds of appeal were dismissed having become infructuous. The appeals in I.T.A. No.23 & 24 are against such rectified orders passed by learned CIT(A). The Revenue has filed appeals against both orders of learned

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

rectification applications u/s 154 of the I.T. Act and therefore, the learned CIT(A) passed further order u/s 154 of the Act and the other grounds of appeal were dismissed having become infructuous. The appeals in I.T.A. No.23 & 24 are against such rectified orders passed by learned CIT(A). The Revenue has filed appeals against both orders of learned

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

rectification applications u/s 154 of the I.T. Act and therefore, the learned CIT(A) passed further order u/s 154 of the Act and the other grounds of appeal were dismissed having become infructuous. The appeals in I.T.A. No.23 & 24 are against such rectified orders passed by learned CIT(A). The Revenue has filed appeals against both orders of learned

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

rectification applications u/s 154 of the I.T. Act and therefore, the learned CIT(A) passed further order u/s 154 of the Act and the other grounds of appeal were dismissed having become infructuous. The appeals in I.T.A. No.23 & 24 are against such rectified orders passed by learned CIT(A). The Revenue has filed appeals against both orders of learned

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

rectification applications u/s 154 of the I.T. Act and therefore, the learned CIT(A) passed further order u/s 154 of the Act and the other grounds of appeal were dismissed having become infructuous. The appeals in I.T.A. No.23 & 24 are against such rectified orders passed by learned CIT(A). The Revenue has filed appeals against both orders of learned

VIJAY PAL SINGH,HARDOI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

capital gains by takin Rs.1.15 51,737/-being the value taken by stamp authorities as sale consideration as against Rs.17.64.150/- as declare by the assessee and we direct accordingly. The IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, AHMEDABAD in the case of Rajni Arvind Birla v ITO 1.T.A. No. 930/Ahd/2025 has held in para

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

gains’ of business or profession. In CIT vs. TirathramAhuja (HUF) (2008) 6 DTR (Del) 335 has held that there was no failure on the part of assessee to disclose a material fact where rateable value of the property was enhanced by the Municipal Corporation after assessment for assessment year 1991–92 to 1993-94 had been computed, hence reopening

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

gains’ of business or profession. In CIT vs. TirathramAhuja (HUF) (2008) 6 DTR (Del) 335 has held that there was no failure on the part of assessee to disclose a material fact where rateable value of the property was enhanced by the Municipal Corporation after assessment for assessment year 1991–92 to 1993-94 had been computed, hence reopening

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

capital in SPVs will yield dividend income which\nwould not be includible in assessee's total income. Hence, assessee should not\ndeducted the interest incurred on the amounted invested in these SPVs. The claim\nof assessee that the surplus interest free funds were available with the assessee\nand the investment made in SPVs are out of these surplus funds