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

seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act was carried out on 05.02.2022 on the business and residential premises of M/s Alok Construction being proprietary concern of Appellant. The assessee is Government Contractor and during the relevant period, the assessee engaged in proprietorship business of construction of road etc. in semi urban area from contract work provided

KHANDELWAL SOYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,RAMPUR vs. ACIT(CENTERAL), BAREILLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the\nterms indicated hereinbefore

search and seizure action, leading to additions by the Assessing Officer for alleged bogus commission and advertisement expenses, and disallowance of depreciation

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

search and seizure operation and the necessary notices\nhad been issued by the Assessing Officer providing opportunities to the assessee\nand the order under section 143(3) had been passed after examining the\nexplanations and submissions made by the assessee and in view of the same, she\nwas of the opinion, the assessment order was neither invalid in the eyes

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

search and seizure operation and the necessary notices had been issued by the Assessing Officer providing opportunities to the assessee and the order under section 143(3) had been passed after examining the explanations and submissions made by the assessee and in view of the same, she was of the opinion, the assessment order was neither invalid in the eyes

JCIT(OSD), CC-1, LKO, LUCKNOW vs. ACP TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

search & seizure operation, the contention of the appellant that\nnotice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued misinterpreting the Board's\nCircular dated 03.06.2022 has no force. In fact, the case was selected for\nscrutiny as per Board's guidelines. On perusal of the assessment order,\nit is noted that the appellant has duly complied with the notices issued

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

depreciation of Rs.14,99,267/- has already been\ndisallowed, the net profit rate of 11% applied by the Assessing Officer is\ntoo high when appellant has shown comparatively higher profit margin of\n10.13% and 9.68% in subsequent years i.e. A.Y. 2021-22 and A.Y. 2022-\n23 to cover up the deficiencies of unproved sundry creditors/remission of\nliabilities found during search

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

search and seizure action.\nNo incriminating documents were seized or found during the course of\nsearch. The assessee filed a block return showing nil income. The regular\nreturns were filed up to the assessment year 19998-99 at Mumbai. After\nverification, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that undisclosed\nincome of the assessee was nil. For the purpose

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

depreciation allowed to the assessee were barred by limitation and illegal. Delhi ITAT Bench in case of Richa Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA No.1476/Del/2014, Mar 14, 2017 has held that reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act cannot be initiated after expiry of 4 years from end of relevant assessment year unless there is failure on part

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

depreciation allowed to the assessee were barred by limitation and illegal. Delhi ITAT Bench in case of Richa Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA No.1476/Del/2014, Mar 14, 2017 has held that reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act cannot be initiated after expiry of 4 years from end of relevant assessment year unless there is failure on part

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

search such statement cannot be itself be made the basis for addition, unless, the A.O have corroborative material in the hand to make such addition. If there is unaccounted investment the same should be taxed as undisclosed and not on the basis of un substantiated statement recorded either from the assessee or from the third party. It is therefore requested

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

search such statement cannot be itself be made the basis for addition, unless, the A.O have corroborative material in the hand to make such addition. If there is unaccounted investment the same should be taxed as undisclosed and not on the basis of un substantiated statement recorded either from the assessee or from the third party. It is therefore requested

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

depreciation on these assets on business lines, and if an independent infrastructure company would be given such rights, it could not be held that the same is for charitable purposes. These are just to demonstrate that the Assessee shall perform the activity of advancement of any other objects of general public utility. But auction of land to the highest bidder

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

depreciation on these assets on business lines, and if an independent infrastructure company would be given such rights, it could not be held that the same is for charitable purposes. These are just to demonstrate that the Assessee shall perform the activity of advancement of any other objects of general public utility. But auction of land to the highest bidder

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

depreciation on these assets on business lines, and if an independent infrastructure company would be given such rights, it could not be held that the same is for charitable purposes. These are just to demonstrate that the Assessee shall perform the activity of advancement of any other objects of general public utility. But auction of land to the highest bidder

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

depreciation on these assets on business lines, and if an independent infrastructure company would be given such rights, it could not be held that the same is for charitable purposes. These are just to demonstrate that the Assessee shall perform the activity of advancement of any other objects of general public utility. But auction of land to the highest bidder

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

depreciation on these assets on business lines, and if an independent infrastructure company would be given such rights, it could not be held that the same is for charitable purposes. These are just to demonstrate that the Assessee shall perform the activity of advancement of any other objects of general public utility. But auction of land to the highest bidder

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

depreciation on these assets on business lines, and if an independent infrastructure company would be given such rights, it could not be held that the same is for charitable purposes. These are just to demonstrate that the Assessee shall perform the activity of advancement of any other objects of general public utility. But auction of land to the highest bidder

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

depreciation on these assets on business lines, and if an independent infrastructure company would be given such rights, it could not be held that the same is for charitable purposes. These are just to demonstrate that the Assessee shall perform the activity of advancement of any other objects of general public utility. But auction of land to the highest bidder