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

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

In the result all six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

35 of the U.P.U.P D.A 1973 , dealing with the power of authority to \nlevy betterment charges, which he reproduced in his order, the ld. CIT(A) held that the levy of \nbetterment charges was akin to the activity of a builder or a developer and a profit motive was \nclearly involved in the provisions of this section of that

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

35 of the U.P.U.P D.A 1973 , dealing with the power of authority to \nlevy betterment charges, which he reproduced in his order, the ld. CIT(A) held that the levy of \nbetterment charges was akin to the activity of a builder or a developer and a profit motive was \nclearly involved in the provisions of this section of that

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

35 of the U.P.U.P D.A 1973 , dealing with the power of authority to \nlevy betterment charges, which he reproduced in his order, the ld. CIT(A) held that the levy of \nbetterment charges was akin to the activity of a builder or a developer and a profit motive was \nclearly involved in the provisions of this section of that

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

35 dated 18.01.2020 filed\nbefore the CIT(A) against the original\nassessment order dated 15.12.2019\nCopy of\nNotice\nu/s\n142(1)\ndated\n01.12.2019\nCopy of\nNotice\nu/s\n142(1)\ndated\n06.12.2019\nCopy of\nNotice\nu/s\n142(1)\ndated\n14.09.2019\nCopy of Reply filed in response to notice\nu/s 142(1)\nCopy of Reply filed in response to notice\nu/s

GENUS POWER INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITTED,NOIDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTERAL), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

section and that you fulfilled the requisite\ncondition, stipulations, rules etc. Please furnish requisite documentary\nevidence based on which such deduction has been claimed. In case of your\nfailure to furnish these details, the corresponding direction claimed is\nliable to be disallowed.\n\nLarge deduction claimed u/s 35 2AA 35 2AB 35 CCC and 35 CCD: Please\nfurnish the details

SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

35,200/-.\nThe assessee is carrying on business of edible oil. Besides business\nincome, he draws salary from M/s R.K. Agro Oil (P) Ltd., and from M/s\nGanpati Edible Oil (P) Ltd., income from house property and other sources.\nReturn declaring total income of Rs.13,20,260/- was e-filed on through\nacknowledgement no.499539771280912. The said return was processed\nunder

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

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

MR. PAWAN KUMAR SINGH,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2009-10 Mr Pawan Kumar Singh V. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1) 848, Tilak Colony, Subhash Nagar, Bareilly (Up). Bareilly. Pan:Ccrps4435G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 04 2025 O R D E R

35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer" shall have the same

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

2(14)(iii) deals specifically that agricultural land, which falls under municipal limits, that’s why those are capital assets and capital gains on transfer of such land is chargeable to tax. Said situations of capital gains fall under clause (a) of section 10(37) of the Act. vi. Appellant never claimed exemption from income tax for transfer of agricultural

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

2(14)(iii) deals specifically that agricultural land, which falls under municipal limits, that’s why those are capital assets and capital gains on transfer of such land is chargeable to tax. Said situations of capital gains fall under clause (a) of section 10(37) of the Act. vi. Appellant never claimed exemption from income tax for transfer of agricultural

HARCHARAN SINGH,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(5), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.201/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 Harcharan Singh V. Ito-2(5) 118/208, Kaushalpuri, Kanpur- Kanpur 208012. Pan:Anxps2189N अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: None प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Deepak Yadav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10 06 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 06 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

section 50C were not applicable to the same (at the time of sale); 5. the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in computing/upholding the computation of Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.1,56,21,620/- by treating the sale plots of land as sale of capital asset simpliciter (instead of treating the same as stock-in-trade

TINICH SAHKARI GANNA SAMITI LIMITED,BASTII vs. ITO, BASTI

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

35) challenging non allowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a) (iii) in respect of an interest of Rs. 16412/- received u/s 244A. 9. That on the whole facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record, the Id. CIT(A) is not justified and correct in confirming an addition of Rs.16412/ made on account of interest received u/s 244A

TINICH SAHKARI GANNA SAMITI LIMITED,BASTI vs. ITO, , BASTI

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

35) challenging non allowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a) (iii) in respect of an interest of Rs. 16412/- received u/s 244A. 9. That on the whole facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record, the Id. CIT(A) is not justified and correct in confirming an addition of Rs.16412/ made on account of interest received u/s 244A

AYYUB JAFRI,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

35 wherein he had claimed long term capital gain on sale of plots of amount that had been inherited from his ancestors prior to 1.04.2001 and which were situated at 370/10 KHA, Hata Noor Beg, Shahadatganj, Chowk, Lucknow and he had incurred expenses on improvements of plots by doing land filling and levelling aggregating to Rs. 1,04,038/- during

TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Technical Associates Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 8Th Km, Faizabad Road Tax Vijaypur, Gomti Nagar Range 6 Lucknow Lucknow Pan:Aabct7365F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Santhosh Kumar Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25 06 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 06 2024 O R D E R

35,900/- on a total turnover of Rs.172,62,86,685/-. According to the Assessing Officer, in the computation of income, the assessee had claimed depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs.40,016,103/- (Rs.1,01,82,132 + Rs.2,95,30,939 + Rs.3,03,032). The assessee had also filed the Tax Audit

ABHAY BENARA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Abhay Benara, The Deputy V. Commissioner Of Income C/O 24/4, The Mall Kanpur-208001. Tax, Central Circle-1 Kanpur. Pan:Adlpb2007Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) was issued and duly served upon the assessee. In response to the statutory notices, Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee attended the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) while framing the assessment made various additions i.e. Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs.1,06,05,092/- and income