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

depreciation was allowable as the same had not been \nallowed as application. He, therefore, partly allowed this ground of appeal in both assessment \nyears. \n27. Aggrieved with the orders of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is before us in appeal. Smt. \nShweta Mittal, C.A. (hereinafter known as the ld. AR) appearing on behalf of the assessee \nsubmitted that

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

depreciation was allowable as the same had not been \nallowed as application. He, therefore, partly allowed this ground of appeal in both assessment \nyears.\n27. Aggrieved with the orders of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is before us in appeal. Smt. \nShweta Mittal, C.A. (hereinafter known as the ld. AR) appearing on behalf of the assessee \nsubmitted that

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 was allowable as the same had not been \nallowed as application. He, therefore, partly allowed this ground of appeal in both assessment \nyears. \n27. Aggrieved with the orders of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is before us in appeal. Smt. \nShweta Mittal, C.A. (hereinafter known as the ld. AR) appearing on behalf of the assessee \nsubmitted that

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

depreciation on such assets. The ld. AR, thereafter invited our attention to para 10.8.01 of the ld. CIT(A’s) order on the issue of cash deposit. It was pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) had come to a completely erroneous conclusion that the cash deposits were made out of capitation fees or that they were unexplained

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

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

depreciation on such assets. The ld. AR, thereafter\ninvited our attention to para 10.8.01 of the ld. CIT(A's) order on the issue of cash\ndeposit. It was pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) had come to a completely erroneous\nconclusion that the cash deposits were made out of capitation fees or that they\nwere unexplained

DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. PRAYAGRAJ POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD.,, NOIDA

In the result, ground no. 1 of appeal is dismissed and ground no

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

depreciation is nil; or (iv) [***] to (vi) (vii) the amount of profits of sick industrial company for the assessment year commencing on and from the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the said company has become a sick industrial company under sub- section (1) of section 17 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions

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

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has\nbeen computed;]\n\n[(d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity)\nlocated outside India.]\n\n[Explanation 3.-For the purpose of assessment or reassessment1 under this section,\nthe Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E), LUCKNOW vs. M/S. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CARPET TECHNOLOGY , BHADOHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Indian Institute Of Carpet Income-Tax (Exemption), Technology, Chauri Road, Srn, Lucknow Bhadohi Pan: Aaaji0124M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akash Agrawal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Department Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Deleted The Addition Of Rs.1,70,77,516/- That Was Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer On Account Of Surplus Above 15% Of Gross Receipts. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Deleting The Addition Made Of Rs. 1,70,77,516/- On Account Of Amount Surplus Above 15% Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Instead Of Utilizing This Amount Or Crediting This Amount To Income & Expenditure Account, This Sum Was Directly Credited To Balance Sheet. 2. Appellant Craves Leave To Modify/Amend Or Add Any One Or More Grounds Of Appeal.” 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Society Is Registered Under Section 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Vide Order Dated 11.12.2006 Of The Ld. Cit, Varanasi. From A Perusal Of The Papers Submitted By The Assessee As Well As The Data Available Online, The Ld. Assessing Officer Found That There Was A Receipt Of A Grant

depreciation of Rs. 65,45,834/- in accordance with the provisions of section 11(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, after these disallowances, the total income of the assessee was computed at Rs. 1,70,77,516/-. 3. The assessee went in appeal to the ld. CIT(A), Varanasi. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that

M/S U.P. STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraacit, Range-1 V. M/S. Up State Bridge Corporation Ltd Ashok Marg, Lucknow. 16, Madan Mohan Malviya Marg, Lucknow Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri B. P Yadav, Cost Acct Respondent By: Smt Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

Section 263 of the Act, where he has observed that the A.O. has not taxed the Exchange Variation Reserve (EVR) amounting to Rs. 2,00,62,003/- appearing on asset side in the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31.03.1990. Finally, on 28.03.2003, the CIT has set aside the assessment u/s 263. 4. Final assessment order was passed

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

25-1-1996.\nBrij Bhushan Agarwal v. CIT (Agra) 2 SOT 811 (2005)\nOf Section 263, read with section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nRevision orders prejudicial to interest of revenue -Assessment year 2000-\n01 Whether assessment order which has been subject-matter of\nproceeding under section 263 may be a cryptic one but that itself does

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 claimed of Rs. 31,53,656/- as per the provisions of section 11(6). The issues of rental income and violation of section 13(3) were also raised in the assessment for the assessment year 2017-18. 15. Aggrieved by the rejection of its claim for exemption in all these assessment orders, the assessee went in appeal

ITO-6(1), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,, LUCKNOW

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.261/Lkw/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1), Lucknow . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

25 of ITAT-Rules, 1963 on merits with the able assistance from the Revenue. Ordered & proceeded accordingly. 4. We have heard the Revenue and subject to rule 18 of the ITAT-Rules, 1963 perused the material placed on records and considered the facts in the light of settled legal position and note that, the respondent assessee is a state-owned

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

25 AM\nYou are requested to attend in person or through an authorized representative to submit your representation, if any alongwith supporting documents/information in support of the issues involved (as mentioned below). If you wish that the Revision proceeding be concluded on the basis of your written submissions/representations filed in this office, on or before the said due date, then

SMT.SATYAWATI MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,FAIZABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: N.A. Smt. Satyawati Memorial Educational V. The Cit (Exemption) & Charitable Trust Lucknow Satyawati Sadan, 4/4/326 Khaswaspura, Ayodhya Road Faizabad Tan/Pan:Aajts7143K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Sheela Chopra, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 08 2022 O R D E R

25 07 2022 Date of pronouncement: 22 08 2022 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT (Exemption), Lucknow dated 31.3.2021, passed under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. That the learned CIT Exemption has erred

PRATHAMA CONSTRUCTIONS,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(2), LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2016-17 Prathama Constructions V. The Ito-2(2) F-120, Ganj Plaza Lucknow 42, Masjid Lane Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aakfp8300L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 04 2025 O R D E R

25 04 2025 O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 25.03.2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in the business of running Hotel and construction work. The assessee filed

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-APPEAL, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

25 lakhs, if his nature related with trade, commerce, etc As per circular no. 2008 of Finance Act 2008 1s clearly motioned section 2(15) it’s based on of fact or law as applicable. In the case of related assessee, The UP urban planning and development 1973 is not amended its object after insertion, As per fact (Point

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

25 lakhs, if his nature related with trade, commerce, etc As per circular no. 2008 of Finance Act 2008 1s clearly motioned section 2(15) it’s based on of fact or law as applicable. In the case of related assessee, The UP urban planning and development 1973 is not amended its object after insertion, As per fact (Point