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

d) and 13(3) of the Act. Revenue also submitted grounds on 19.03.2021 as an abundant caution again pointing out the non-consideration of Sections 11(2) and 11(3) and also the specific items of disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11

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

d) and 13(3) of the Act. Revenue also submitted grounds on 19.03.2021 as an abundant caution again pointing out the non-consideration of Sections 11(2) and 11(3) and also the specific items of disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11

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

d) and 13(3) of the Act. Revenue also submitted grounds on 19.03.2021 as an abundant caution again pointing out the non-consideration of Sections 11(2) and 11(3) and also the specific items of disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11

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

d) and 13(3) of the Act. Revenue also submitted grounds on 19.03.2021 as an abundant caution again pointing out the non-consideration of Sections 11(2) and 11(3) and also the specific items of disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11

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

d) and 13(3) of the Act. Revenue also submitted grounds on 19.03.2021 as an abundant caution again pointing out the non-consideration of Sections 11(2) and 11(3) and also the specific items of disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11

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

d) and 13(3) of the Act. Revenue also submitted grounds on 19.03.2021 as an abundant caution again pointing out the non-consideration of Sections 11(2) and 11(3) and also the specific items of disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (FORMELY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),LUCKNOW vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

d. Order of Hon'ble ITAT, Agra in case of Jhansi Development Authority for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 256/Agr/2014 dated 13.01.2021 7. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition against the NIL returned income as made by the appellant was founded on the following undisputed facts

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

capital receipt. Accordingly, section 115BBE is not applicable on the assessee. On the basis of the above submissions, it is very clear that the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred both on the facts as well as in law in treating the corpus donation as income u/s 2(24) and making the addition u/s 68 . The order passed is not tenable

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

capital receipt. Accordingly, section 115BBE is not applicable on the assessee. On the basis of the above submissions, it is very clear that the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred both on the facts as well as in law in treating the corpus donation as income u/s 2(24) and making the addition u/s 68 . The order passed is not tenable

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

Capital Gains (LTCG) by way of sale of shares. It is also the case of the Revenue that during the course of the search operations and post-search investigation, various incriminating documents were found and seized which disclosed that income from sale of shares of penny stock companies was disclosed as LTCG by its beneficiaries, and the LTCG earned

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

Capital Gains (LTCG) by way of sale of shares. It is also the case of the Revenue that during the course of the search operations and post-search investigation, various incriminating documents were found and seized which disclosed that income from sale of shares of penny stock companies was disclosed as LTCG by its beneficiaries, and the LTCG earned

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

Capital Gains (LTCG) by way of sale of shares. It is also the case of the Revenue that during the course of the search operations and post-search investigation, various incriminating documents were found and seized which disclosed that income from sale of shares of penny stock companies was disclosed as LTCG by its beneficiaries, and the LTCG earned

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(FORMERLY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),AYODHYA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

d. Order of Hon'ble ITAT, Agra in case of Jhansi Development Authority for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 256/Agr/2014 dated 13.01.2021 7. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition against the NIL returned income as made by the appellant was founded on the following undisputed facts

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR vs. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

11 therefore, disallowed the plea of long term capital, gains and added the differential amount, of Rs.17,54,237/- as 'income from other sources'. The matter was carried in appeal before CIT(Appeals), who vide order dated 27th February, 2008 accepted the plea of the assessee and deleted the addition. The Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal has failed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR vs. SMT. SHEHLA AHMED , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-1 V. Smt. Shehla Ahmad Kanpur 376-C, Allied Street Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpa4122N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.09/Lkw/2018 [In Ita No.181/Lkw/2018] Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Shehla Ahmad V. Dy. Cit-1 376-C, Allied Street Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpa4122N (Cross-Objector) (Respondent) Department By: Shri R. K. Vishvakarma, D.R. Assessee By: Shri Swarn Singh, Fca Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 08 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Revenue’S Appeal & Assessee’S Cross Objection Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Kanpur, Dated 1/12/2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Kanpur Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.22,00,000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Undisclosed

capital gain on sale of shares, to buy peace and to avoid litigation, which does not prove that it is a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as contemplated in the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the surrender made by the assessee is voluntary, for which only addition

SHRI KINGSHUK GHOSHAL,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-6(5), LUCKNOW

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Kinghshuk Ghoshal V. The Ito 6(5) E-402, Halwasiya Utsav Enclave Lucknow Opposite Hal, Faizabad Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Affpg3258L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 26.12.2017, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Lucknow-3 (Ld. Cit(A)) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.11.2012, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,05,233/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noticed That The Assessee Was Earning Interest Income From Saving Bank Deposits & Fdrs & That The Assessee Had Claimed Exemption Of Rs.71,54,619/- Under Section 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). During The

D E R This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against order dated 26.12.2017, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Lucknow-3 (ld. CIT(A)) for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 29.11.2012, declaring a total

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

D E R \nPER BENCH: \nAll these appeals have been filed by the assessee authority against various orders \npassed by the ld. CIT(A) at Lucknow and NFAC. While the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals for the \n assessment years 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, the appeals of the assessee for the \n assessment years

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

D E R \nPER BENCH:\nAll these appeals have been filed by the assessee authority against various orders \npassed by the ld. CIT(A) at Lucknow and NFAC. While the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals for the \n assessment years 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, the appeals of the assessee for the \n assessment years