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

32,94,360 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 16-17 30/12/2019 87,42,900 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 17-18 30/12/2019 34,94,030 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 18-19 31/12/2019 2,97,93,070 31/01/2022 Partly allowed 12-13 28/12/2019 47,43,180 31/01/2022 Standard Agro Vet Partly allowed Pvt. Ltd. -Do- 13-14 29/12/2019 1,22,06,030 31/01/2022

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

32 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) the activities of such Authority are hit by section 2(15) of the Act read with first and second proviso and are not in line with the objects of the Authority/Trust so far as the activities relating to purchase and sale of properties, as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, the activities are not genuine

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

32 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) the activities of such Authority are hit by section 2(15) of the Act read with first and second proviso and are not in line with the objects of the Authority/Trust so far as the activities relating to purchase and sale of properties, as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, the activities are not genuine

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

32 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) the activities of such Authority are hit by section 2(15) of the Act read with first and second proviso and are not in line with the objects of the Authority/Trust so far as the activities relating to purchase and sale of properties, as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, the activities are not genuine

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

32 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) the activities of such Authority are hit by section 2(15) of the Act read with first and second proviso and are not in line with the objects of the Authority/Trust so far as the activities relating to purchase and sale of properties, as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, the activities are not genuine

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

32 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) the activities of such Authority are hit by section 2(15) of the Act read with first and second proviso and are not in line with the objects of the Authority/Trust so far as the activities relating to purchase and sale of properties, as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, the activities are not genuine

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

32 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) the activities of such Authority are hit by section 2(15) of the Act read with first and second proviso and are not in line with the objects of the Authority/Trust so far as the activities relating to purchase and sale of properties, as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, the activities are not genuine

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

32 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) the activities of such Authority are hit by section 2(15) of the Act read with first and second proviso and are not in line with the objects of the Authority/Trust so far as the activities relating to purchase and sale of properties, as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, the activities are not genuine

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

32 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) the activities of such Authority are hit by section 2(15) of the Act read with first and second proviso and are not in line with the objects of the Authority/Trust so far as the activities relating to purchase and sale of properties, as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, the activities are not genuine

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

Capital Gain [hereinafter referred to as ‘LTCG’] under Section 10(38) of the Act. He inter alia concluded that the assessee had adopted a colorable device of LTCG to avoid tax and accordingly framed the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act at the total income of Rs. 1,09,12,060/-, making an addition

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

gains by an industry entitled to benefit\nunder Section 80-E cannot be reduced by the loss suffered by any\nother industry or industries owned by the assessee.\n\n15. In the case before us, there is no discussion about Section 80-\nIA(5) by the Appellate Authority, nor the Tribunal and the High Court.\nHowever, we have considered

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

ii) Manish Kumar Baid ITA 1236/Kol/2017 (Kolkata ITAT). (iii) Mahendra Kumar Baid ITA 1237/Kol/2017 (Kolkata ITAT). This Bench of the Tribunal came to a conclusion that in such circumstances the additions are not maintainable. I.T.A. No.61 to 65/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2012-13 16 6.12. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has in cases having similar facts upheld the contentions

MARGHOOB ALAM,KANPUR vs. DCUT, CC-II, KANPUR, KANPUR

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

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

ii) Manish Kumar Baid ITA 1236/Kol/2017 (Kolkata ITAT). (iii) Mahendra Kumar Baid ITA 1237/Kol/2017 (Kolkata ITAT). This Bench of the Tribunal came to a conclusion that in such circumstances the additions are not maintainable. I.T.A. No.61 to 65/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2012-13 16 6.12. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has in cases having similar facts upheld the contentions

NAUSHEEN FARAH,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

ii) Manish Kumar Baid ITA 1236/Kol/2017 (Kolkata ITAT). (iii) Mahendra Kumar Baid ITA 1237/Kol/2017 (Kolkata ITAT). This Bench of the Tribunal came to a conclusion that in such circumstances the additions are not maintainable. I.T.A. No.61 to 65/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2012-13 16 6.12. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has in cases having similar facts upheld the contentions

NISHAT ARA,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

ii) Manish Kumar Baid ITA 1236/Kol/2017 (Kolkata ITAT). (iii) Mahendra Kumar Baid ITA 1237/Kol/2017 (Kolkata ITAT). This Bench of the Tribunal came to a conclusion that in such circumstances the additions are not maintainable. I.T.A. No.61 to 65/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2012-13 16 6.12. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has in cases having similar facts upheld the contentions

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

ii) Manish Kumar Baid ITA 1236/Kol/2017 (Kolkata ITAT). (iii) Mahendra Kumar Baid ITA 1237/Kol/2017 (Kolkata ITAT). This Bench of the Tribunal came to a conclusion that in such circumstances the additions are not maintainable. I.T.A. No.61 to 65/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2012-13 16 6.12. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has in cases having similar facts upheld the contentions