ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S PRAG INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Videshri Anadee Nath Misshra

depreciable asset, forming part of Unit no.3 (2nd Unit at Dehradun). 5. BECAUSE the view taken by the ld."CIT(A)", while upholding the addition of Rs.27,55,343/- to the capital gain, suffers from I.T.A. No.660/Lkw/2016 C.O.No.01/Lkw/2017 16 non-consideration of factual matrix of the case as had been duly mentioned in paras

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

depreciation as application of funds. \n10. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing \nassessment order which is contrary to the facts and law. \n11. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal or \nraise any new ground of appeal during the pendency of appeal

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

depreciation as application of funds.\n10. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing \nassessment order which is contrary to the facts and law.\n11. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal or \nraise any new ground of appeal during the pendency of appeal

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

depreciation as application of funds. \n10. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing \nassessment order which is contrary to the facts and law. \n11. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal or \nraise any new ground of appeal during the pendency of appeal

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

depreciation as application of funds. 10. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing assessment order which is contrary to the facts and law. 11. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal or raise any new ground of appeal during the pendency of appeal

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act are being initiated separately as the income computed includes income u/s 69C of the Act. (Addition of Rs. 22,55,000/-) 21. That the appellant being aggrieved from the above additions went in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who deleted the above addition made by the ld.AO. 22. The finding

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act are being initiated separately as the income computed includes income u/s 69C of the Act. (Addition of Rs. 22,55,000/-) 21. That the appellant being aggrieved from the above additions went in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who deleted the above addition made by the ld.AO. 22. The finding

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

penalty also cannot be stated to be a reason for reopening of assessment of the assessee as the said statement made is neither followed by the recording of a belief that the income escaped on that count or that the assessee has failed to disclose all relevant material, fully and truly, at the stage of the first assessment

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

penalty also cannot be stated to be a reason for reopening of assessment of the assessee as the said statement made is neither followed by the recording of a belief that the income escaped on that count or that the assessee has failed to disclose all relevant material, fully and truly, at the stage of the first assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT\nAND\nSHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)

Penalty notice\nu/s 270A of the Act is issued for under reporting and misreporting of\nincome separately.\n\n(B.1) The assessee's appeal was partly allowed by the learned CIT(A) in\nimpugned appellate order dated 29/03/2024. The learned CIT(A) confirmed\nthe aforesaid addition of Rs.94,13,54,207/-. However, the aforesaid\nadditions of Rs.3

UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

Penalty notice\nu/s 270A of the Act is issued for under reporting and misreporting of\nincome separately.\n(B.1) The assessee's appeal was partly allowed by the learned CIT(A) in\nimpugned appellate order dated 29/03/2024. The learned CIT(A) confirmed\nthe aforesaid addition of Rs.94,13,54,207/-. However, the aforesaid\nadditions of Rs.3

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

penalty under section 271(1)(b). Subsequently, a notice for best judgment assessment under section 144 was issued on 30.11.2016. In response to this notice, the representative of the assessee appeared on 5.12.2016 and filed a letter stating that the original return filed may kindly be treated as the return filed in compliance to the notice C.O. No. 20/LKW/2017

SRI SAINATH ASSOCIATES,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT-6, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

depreciation on car and one-fifth on telephone expenses treating it as personal in nature - AO ha, never examined the details of such expenses before coming to the conclusion as to, whether any personal expenses are involved — Merely on estimate or on ad hoc no disallowance can be made - CIT (A) was justified in deleting the disallowance.” , HUGHES ESCORTS COMMUNICATIONS

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

depreciation of Rs. 14,99,267/- has already been disallowed, the net profit rate of 11% applied by the Assessing Officer is too high when appellant has shown comparatively higher profit margin of 10.13% and 9.68% in subsequent years i.e. A.Y. 2021-22 and A.Y. 2022- 23 to cover up the deficiencies of unproved sundry creditors/remission of liabilities found during

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

depreciation of Rs. 14,99,267/- has already been disallowed, the net profit rate of 11% applied by the Assessing Officer is too high when appellant has shown comparatively higher profit margin of 10.13% and 9.68% in subsequent years i.e. A.Y. 2021-22 and A.Y. 2022- 23 to cover up the deficiencies of unproved sundry creditors/remission of liabilities found during

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

depreciation of Rs. 14,99,267/- has already been disallowed, the net profit rate of 11% applied by the Assessing Officer is too high when appellant has shown comparatively higher profit margin of 10.13% and 9.68% in subsequent years i.e. A.Y. 2021-22 and A.Y. 2022- 23 to cover up the deficiencies of unproved sundry creditors/remission of liabilities found during

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. M/S NARAIN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES PVT. LTD., KANPUR

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

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2 M/s Narain Institute of Management Studies Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009-10 3. Aggrieved by this addition, the assessee went in appeal to the ld. CIT(A)-2, Kanpur on a number of points. On the issue under question, it was submitted that the assessee only had sundry creditors amounting

MADKINI HYDRO POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 4(3), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2018-19 Madkini Hydro Power Private V. The Income Tax Officer 4(3) Limited Lucknow Flat No.4, Ii Floor 3, Scindia House Delhi 110 001 Tan/Pan:Aaecm1420B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalendera Kishore Singh, Adv. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

depreciation". The Assessing Officer (AO) issued statutory notices to the assessee. However, there was no response from the side of the assessee. On examination of the return of income filed by the assessee, the AO noticed that during the year under consideration, the assessee had shown an amount of Rs.12,31,00,000/- as total Long Term Borrowings and Rs.2

HAKIKAT SARAF,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(5), KANPUR

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary, Member A.Y. 2014-15 Hakikat Saraf, Income Tax Officer-2(5), 124/B/168, Govind Nagar, Vs. Kanpur Kanpur-208006 Pan:Afpps4419H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Kanpur Dated 24.01.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.47,33,000/- Under Section 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii) Of The I.T. Act, 1961, Which Addition Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law & Be Deleted. 02. Because The Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Has Arbitrarily Held, That The Difference Between The Actual Gross Consideration Rs. 1,09,34,000/- & The Stamp Value Estimated By The Stamp Valuation Authorities, Subsequently Reduced By The District Valuation Officer At Rs. 1,56,67,600/- Is Deemed Income Under Section 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii) Of The Act.

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated. 3. The assessee was aggrieved at the addition and therefore, filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that nine tenants were occupying 90% of the property and had been there for 50 to 75 years. The property was a disputed property