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

section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for the assessment year." 6. In the present case the purported reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment were as under:- "Reasons of the belief that income has escaped Assessment. In this case the assessment for the asstt. Year 2002-03 was made

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

section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for the assessment year." 6. In the present case the purported reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment were as under:- "Reasons of the belief that income has escaped Assessment. In this case the assessment for the asstt. Year 2002-03 was made

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

143(3) of the Act for\nthe said assessment year.\nAgain, in the assessment year 2009-10 also, the assessee\nclaimed depreciation on the investment in BOT facility as an\nintangible asset and the Assessing Officer allowed\nassessee's claim of depreciation in an assessment order\npassed under section

ACIT, CIRCLE 3, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. ANSHUMAN SINGH, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year):\n\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

143(3) by invoking jurisdiction under section 263\nof the Act which was not justified because the assessee had made a\nclaim for leasehold rights in land and building. The assessee had claimed\ndeduction for leasehold rights in land and building from the purchase\nvalue of land and building. The assessee had claimed depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

143(3) was erroneous in the first place. The AO made inquiries during the course of assessment proceedings, and the appellant filed detailed responses supported by documentary evidence. The Ld. PCIT has merely substituted his own opinion over the AO's conclusion, which is impermissible under law. In any case assessment order cannot be revised on the ground that

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

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

section 143(3). (3) That a demand of tax as computed in the computation sheet is without jurisdiction void-ab-inito and 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

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

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

section 143(3).\n(3) That a demand of tax as computed in the computation sheet is without\njurisdiction void-ab-inito and is liable to be annulled.\n(4) That the Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in confirming\nthe addition of Rs.736591857/-comprising\n•\nCorpus Donation aggregating

U.P SAMAJ KALYAN NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS U.P STATE CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.),LUCKNOW vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, LUCKNOW

143(3) was erroneous in the first place. The AO\nmade inquiries during the course of assessment proceedings, and the appellant\nfiled detailed responses supported by documentary evidence. The Ld. PCIT has\nmerely substituted his own opinion over the AO's conclusion, which is\nimpermissible under law.\nIn any case assessment order cannot be revised on the ground that

ALLIANCE NIRMAAN LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 263 and As such the order is bad in law and\nthe same is liable to be cancelled.\"\n2.\nThe facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private\nlimited company, which is engaged in the business of construction and sale\nof properties and flats. The assessee electronically filed his return of income\nfor

NAVUDAI SHIKSHAN AND JAN KALYAN SEWA SAMITI,KANPUR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Navudai Shikshan & Jan Kalyan Sewa Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Samiti, 117/K/30, Sarvodaya Nagar, Tax (Exemption), Lucknow Kanpur-208005 Pan: Aagfn4916N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (Exemption), Lucknow Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 30.03.2021 Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act For The A.Y. 2016-17 On 15.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Order Passed By Cit(E) U/S 263 Of The Act Dt. 30.03.2021 Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Be Quashed. 02. Because The Order Passed By Ao, Being Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue The Action Of The Cit(E) Set-Asiding The Said Order Is Without Jurisdiction, Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, Be Quashed. 03. Because The Order Passed By The Ao Being Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue, The Cit(E) Has Erred In Law In Setting Aside The Same, The Order Passed By Cit(E) Be Quashed & That As Passed By The Ao Be Restored. 04. Because The Cit(E) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Initial Assessment Was A Deep Scrutiny Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) Wherein Voluminous Queries Were Raised Which Were Complied With & Thoroughly Examined/ Verified By The Ao, The Necessary Enquiring Having Being Done, It Is Neither A Case Of No Inquiring Or Lack Of Enquiring, As Such The Cit(E) Has Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order, The Order Passed By Cit(E) Be Quashed.

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Officer by the Assessing Officer was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, inasmuch as necessary enquiries to verify the genuineness and correctness of the claim of the assessee had not been made. After considering this reference, the ld. CIT (Exemption) issued a show cause notice

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)

143(3) dated 26.12.2011, the assessee had filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and on that occasion also it produced its’ books of accounts. From the same, the assessee submitted that till the finalization of the above said proceedings, no other balance-sheet than its original balance-sheet was available on record. The ld. AO submitted that

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

143 taxmann.com 209 (SC) Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961,\nread with rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 Expenditure incurred in relation to\nexempt income not includible in total income (General) - Assessment years 2013-14,\n2012-13 and 2011-12 High Court by impugned order held that where assessee did\nnot have exempt income, no disallowance

A P S ACADEMY,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-IV(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoorassessment Year 2008-09 M/S A.P.S. Academy, The Income Tax Officer, 239, Leela Building, Vs. Ward –Iv(I), Senani Vihar, Lucknow Raibareilly Road, Lucknow Pan – Aaata 7665H (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3), question of disallowance of any depreciation on the same would not arise. The reasoning given by the Assessing

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

depreciation claims were allowable. The issue of Section 13(2) & 13(3) in AY 2014-15 was remanded for fresh consideration.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "143

GURU KRIPA ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PR. CIT, , BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

143(3) of the Act on 12-06-\n2019. On examination of assessment\nrecords, the Ld PCIT noticed that the\nassessee\nhas deposited cash of\nRs.66,00,000/- into its bank account\nduring demonetisation period. The Ld\nPCIT took the view that the assessing\nofficer has not properly examined this\nissue and the same has rendered the\nassessment order erroneous

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

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

143(3) of the Act, 1961. Charge tax and interest as\nper law. Issued notice of demand and challan accordingly. 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

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)

143(3) of the Act, 1961. Charge tax and interest as\nper law. Issued notice of demand and challan accordingly. 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