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

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. 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

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

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 and levy of penalty on that "charge", as has been upheld by the "CIT(A)" also, was wholly illegal. 3 5. BECAUSE otherwise also and in any case, it deserves

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

c) Copy of Demat account statement with Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. Which dearly shows that the shares were transferred from the name of appellant after its sale. d) Copy of ledger account of the appellant in the books of share broker. e) Copy of Bank Statement of appellant with Bank of India, Agra. I.T.A. No.153/Lkw/2020 Assessment. Year

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

C. Agarwal HUF – ITYA No. 32/Agr/2007 (Agra ITAT) 14. Moreover it was submitted before us by ld AR that the AO was not justified in taking an adverse view against the assessee on the ground of abnormal price rise of the shares and alleging price rigging. It was submitted that there is no allegation in orders of SEBI and/or

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

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

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

In the result, appeals vide I

C of\nChapter VI-A is with respect only to computation of deduction on the\nbasis of 'net income'.\n\n10. Sub-section (1) and sub-section (5) of Section 80-IA which are\nrelevant for these Appeals are as under:\n\n“80-IA. Deductions in respect of profits and gains from\nindustrial undertakings or enterprises engaged in infrastructure

SHRI UMA SHANKER DHANDHANIA,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(5), KANPUR

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

c) Investment so made was reflected in the statement of affairs of the "appellant" in the earlier year (in the year, of acquisition and onward)for which "return" had duly been filed; d) The shares so acquired held in demat account; e) The shares were sold to the companies through the brokers; f) The brokers through whom shares had been

ZAIN ALAM,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

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

27 of the paper book, wherein the Tribunal had taken into account all these adverse decisions against the assessees and after discussing the same and after distinguishing the same, had allowed relief to the assessees. It was further submitted that the reliance placed by learned CIT(A), while confirming the addition on the case law of NDR Promotors Ltd. (Delhi

SHAHEEN RABIA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

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

27 of the paper book, wherein the Tribunal had taken into account all these adverse decisions against the assessees and after discussing the same and after distinguishing the same, had allowed relief to the assessees. It was further submitted that the reliance placed by learned CIT(A), while confirming the addition on the case law of NDR Promotors Ltd. (Delhi