ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

unexplained by the details filed by the assessee. It was submitted that during the remand proceedings, the assessee had submitted the details of cash deposited to the ld. AO and the same were contained in para 10.8.2 of the order of the ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the information that had been submitted by the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S SHRI RAMSWAROOP CHARITABLE TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Y. 2013-14

unexplained credit. It was further argued that against the addition of Rs.8,57,31,152/- the assessee could produce ledger account and vouchers for Rs.7,69,08,761/- only. 6. As regards Ground No.4, the ld. DR stated that the Assessing Officer had made the disallowance on account of personal expenses as the assessee was not able to produce proper

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

trust had accepted its own unaccounted and unexplained money in the garb of donation is based on her finding that the aforesaid Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society was also running educational institutions and according to the Assessing Officer, the aforesaid Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society should have rather spent the fund to develop the infrastructure of its own institute. There

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

trust had accepted its own unaccounted and unexplained money in the garb of donation is based on her finding that the aforesaid Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society was also running educational institutions and according to the Assessing Officer, the aforesaid Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society should have rather spent the fund to develop the infrastructure of its own institute. There

ARCHISHA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,LUCKNOW vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, WARD, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Y. 2016-17 Archisha Educational Trust, Vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), C-2024, Ii Floor, C Block, Lucknow Indira Nagar, Lucknow – 226016 Pan – Aaabt 9595K (Appellant) (Respondent) A.Y. 2016-17 Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Vs. Archisha Educational Trust, Lucknow C-2024, Ii Floor, C Block, Indira Nagar, Lucknow – 226016 Pan – Aaabt 9595K (Appellant) (Respondent)

unexplained u/s.115BBC of the Act, the addition made be deleted. 03. Because as a proper approval of the facts and also the provisions of section 115BBC, it would be found that the same are not applicable to the facts of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition made, the same be deleted. 04. Because name, address

INCOME TAX OFFICER (E), LUCKNOW vs. ARCHISHA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Y. 2016-17 Archisha Educational Trust, Vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), C-2024, Ii Floor, C Block, Lucknow Indira Nagar, Lucknow – 226016 Pan – Aaabt 9595K (Appellant) (Respondent) A.Y. 2016-17 Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Vs. Archisha Educational Trust, Lucknow C-2024, Ii Floor, C Block, Indira Nagar, Lucknow – 226016 Pan – Aaabt 9595K (Appellant) (Respondent)

unexplained u/s.115BBC of the Act, the addition made be deleted. 03. Because as a proper approval of the facts and also the provisions of section 115BBC, it would be found that the same are not applicable to the facts of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition made, the same be deleted. 04. Because name, address

SRI RAM JANKI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,FAIZABAD vs. ASSESSING OFFICER (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sri Ram Janki Educational V. The Assessing Officer Charitable Trust (Exemption) Ram Nagar, Amawasufi Lucknow Faizabad (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aamts3887K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

Charitable Trust (Exemption) Ram Nagar, Amawasufi Lucknow Faizabad (U.P) TAN/PAN:AAMTS3887K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 24.06.2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The brief facts

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S BHAGWAT SARAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BIJNOR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-14

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and which learned CIT(A) has wrongly allowed. 2.2 Arguing ground No. 3 Learned D. R. submitted that assessee had received various amounts from various persons and on an explanation sought by the Assessing Officer regarding genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the persons, the assessee had failed to prove the same