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

c) (ii) will get attracted if the benefit was confined primarily and predominantly to the persons mentioned in Section 13(3)(b) and (e) and incidentally some benefit had percolated and flowed to the public/third persons.” 20. It has been held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the Respondent’s own case in M/s UP Awas Evam & Vikas

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

c) (ii) will get attracted if the benefit was confined primarily and predominantly to the persons mentioned in Section 13(3)(b) and (e) and incidentally some benefit had percolated and flowed to the public/third persons.” 20. It has been held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the Respondent’s own case in M/s UP Awas Evam & Vikas

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

c) (ii) will get attracted if the benefit was confined primarily and predominantly to the persons mentioned in Section 13(3)(b) and (e) and incidentally some benefit had percolated and flowed to the public/third persons.” 20. It has been held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the Respondent’s own case in M/s UP Awas Evam & Vikas

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

c) (ii) will get attracted if the benefit was confined primarily and predominantly to the persons mentioned in Section 13(3)(b) and (e) and incidentally some benefit had percolated and flowed to the public/third persons.” 20. It has been held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the Respondent’s own case in M/s UP Awas Evam & Vikas

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

c) (ii) will get attracted if the benefit was confined primarily and predominantly to the persons mentioned in Section 13(3)(b) and (e) and incidentally some benefit had percolated and flowed to the public/third persons.” 20. It has been held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the Respondent’s own case in M/s UP Awas Evam & Vikas

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

c) (ii) will get attracted if the benefit was confined primarily and predominantly to the persons mentioned in Section 13(3)(b) and (e) and incidentally some benefit had percolated and flowed to the public/third persons.” 20. It has been held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the Respondent’s own case in M/s UP Awas Evam & Vikas

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, while filing the return of her income, therefore, the Ld. AO was not justified in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, onus is on the AO to prove what are the facts or records submitted by assessee that

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

C) No. 7799 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 • On the basis of tabular chart ( at page 1-2 of PB Vol-1) Income Tax Appeal and the appellant wise categorisation of appellant with legal issue and its judicial precedence has been made as following: Sl. No 1 to 10 : In these cases no incriminating material was found during search

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

C) No. 7799 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 • On the basis of tabular chart ( at page 1-2 of PB Vol-1) Income Tax Appeal and the appellant wise categorisation of appellant with legal issue and its judicial precedence has been made as following: Sl. No 1 to 10 : In these cases no incriminating material was found during search

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

C) No. 7799 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 • On the basis of tabular chart ( at page 1-2 of PB Vol-1) Income Tax Appeal and the appellant wise categorisation of appellant with legal issue and its judicial precedence has been made as following: Sl. No 1 to 10 : In these cases no incriminating material was found during search

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

13 same. The AO, conceding to the request made on behalf of the assessee, allowed deduction of Rs.22,221/- under section 80E of the Act. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, computing the income of the assessee as under: Income as per Return : Rs.1,05,233/- Addition on a/c. of Long Term Capital Gain

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

gains from business and profession’. The net surplus disclosed by the assessee of Rs.2,24,59,203/- in the income and expenditure account was therefore added to the total income of the assessee and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. 11. Moving on further, the ld. AO observed that the assessee had transferred funds to the infrastructure

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

c. Salary/remuneration has been paid in excess of reasonably payable; d. Services of the trust has been provided without adequate consideration; e. Any property is 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

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

c. Salary/remuneration has been paid in excess of reasonably payable; d. Services of the trust has been provided without adequate consideration; e. Any property is 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

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

C. I. T. (A), NFAC, erred on facts and in law in upholding the rejection of\ndeduction u/s 36(1) (viia) and 36(1) (viii) as Provision for NPA Rs.81,73,424/- has\nbeen made in the accounts as per Rules.\n4. That the addition of Rs.41,73,577/- as Employees Contribution u/s 36(1)(v)(a) also\nincludes Employer

SMT. SABREEN,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed and Stay Application is dismissed as infructuous

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

Capital Gain amounting to Rs. 1,12,13,010/-. We note that the scripts / equity shares of M/s Sulabh Engineering and Services Ltd. has been dealt with by the SMC Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Vasudha Jain, in ITA No.1018/Kol/2018, for A.Y. 2015-16, order dated 15.02.2019, wherein the SMC Bench of this Tribunal held that addition

TANEJA RICE & DALL MILLS,KANPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Ys. 2003-04

13,79,520/-; the variation of Rs.2,500/- being on account of disallowance of claim of expenditure (as had been made by the appellant in the "return" filed on 02.03.2006, where capital gain was shown at Rs.13,77,020/-). it deserves to be held that the appellant could not have been visited with the "charge" of concealment of income

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

13 of its order, the Tribunal has held as under: “8. I have heard the rival parties and have perused the material placed on record. I find that Assessing Officer has made the additions on the basis of an investigation conducted by DDIT whereby a racket involving thousands of crores of rupees was unearthed and wherein on the basis