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

reopen the assessment after expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment years merely on the basis of incorrect interpretation of accounts by him at the time of original assessment under s. 143(3). Hon’ble High Court of Madras in case of CIT vs. Elgi Finance Ltd., (Appeal

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

assessments were reopened under Section 147. The AO disallowed depreciation and computed income. The assessee challenged the reopening and the disallowances

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

depreciation will become available to the assessee. 3.2 With reference to assessment year 2011-12 in ITA No.361/LKW/2020, the Ld. A.R. submitted that in this year also, assessee’s case was reopened

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

depreciation will become available to the assessee. 3.2 With reference to assessment year 2011-12 in ITA No.361/LKW/2020, the Ld. A.R. submitted that in this year also, assessee’s case was reopened

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

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

reopening u/s 148 whereas the assessment in assessment year 2016-17 was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and in all these three years similar additions, on the basis of same statement of the assessee, recorded u/s 133A, were made. It was submitted that during these three years the Assessing Officer appointed commission and obtained report from Kolkata

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

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

reopening u/s 148 whereas the assessment in assessment year 2016-17 was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and in all these three years similar additions, on the basis of same statement of the assessee, recorded u/s 133A, were made. It was submitted that during these three years the Assessing Officer appointed commission and obtained report from Kolkata

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

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

reopening u/s 148 whereas the assessment in assessment year 2016-17 was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and in all these three years similar additions, on the basis of same statement of the assessee, recorded u/s 133A, were made. It was submitted that during these three years the Assessing Officer appointed commission and obtained report from Kolkata

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

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

reopening u/s 148 whereas the assessment in assessment year 2016-17 was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and in all these three years similar additions, on the basis of same statement of the assessee, recorded u/s 133A, were made. It was submitted that during these three years the Assessing Officer appointed commission and obtained report from Kolkata

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

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

reopening the same u/s 147 of the Act and the assessments for the assessment year 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 were completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and in all these years, the additions out of unsecured loans were made on the basis of a statement recorded of the assessee which he claimed to have retracted

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

reopening of proceedings provides a\nsafeguard against any potential prejudice due to the change of incumbent.\nOn the above discussion it can be easily concluded that:\nThe incumbent A.O. provided the assessee the opportunity of being heard\nbefore passing the assessment order.\nThe assessment order has been passed withing time limit.\nThe assessee did not raise the issue of time

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

In the result, appeals vide I

reopening of proceedings provides a\nsafeguard against any potential prejudice due to the change of incumbent.\n\nOn the above discussion it can be easily concluded that:\n\nThe incumbent A.O. provided the assessee the opportunity of being heard\nbefore passing the assessment order.\nThe assessment order has been passed withing time limit.\nThe assessee did not raise the issue

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

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

reopening of proceedings provides a\nsafeguard against any potential prejudice due to the change of incumbent.\nOn the above discussion it can be easily concluded that:\nThe incumbent A.O. provided the assessee the opportunity of being heard\nbefore passing the assessment order.\nThe assessment order has been passed withing time limit.\nThe assessee did not raise the issue of time

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

Assessing Officer to test \nwhether Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority fulfils the test laid by it for AY \n2015-16. \nThe Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT(Ex) v. Karnataka Industrial Area \nDevelopment Board reported in [2023] 151 taxmann.com 430 (SC) dismissed the \nrevenue’s SLP for AY 2011-12 holding as under: \n“2. The issue

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

Assessing Officer to test \nwhether Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority fulfils the test laid by it for AY \n2015-16.\nThe Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT(Ex) v. Karnataka Industrial Area \nDevelopment Board reported in [2023] 151 taxmann.com 430 (SC) dismissed the \nrevenue’s SLP for AY 2011-12 holding as under:\n“2. The issue

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

Assessment Year to be \nexaminedby Assessing Officer. \nHowever, the matter may be \nremanded to the Assessing Officer \nto examine and investigate the \nmark-up profit charged by the \nassessee. \nAs a consequence, it is necessary in each Co \ncase, having regard to the first proviso and \nseventeenth proviso (the latter introduced in \n2012, w.r.e.f 01.04.2009) to Section 10(23C), \nthat