THAKUR ROSHAN SINGH,BAREILLY vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Thakur Roshan Singh, Smirti Sansthan, Vs. Income Tax Officer Vill Chathiya Faizu, Shahpur, Baniyan (Exemption), Ward, Bareilly Faridpur, Bareilly Pan: Aabat8692F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 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(A), Nfac Dated 4.07.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 16.04.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Fact & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Made By Assessing Officer Rs. 60,20,000/- As Building Expenditure For Charitable Purposes, Arbitrarily Rejecting The Explanation Furnished By The Assessee. 2. Because, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Fact & In Law That Such College Is Being Constructed & Run In The Remote Village Where In Due To Various Exigencies & Not Availability Of The Banking Facilities, Payments Are Made In Cash. 3. Because, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Fact & In Law That The Payments Of Construction Had Made Not Being Rejected By The Ld. Ao. However, Due To Ongoing Work It Is A General Practice To Obtain Bills/Settlement Receipts Only On Finalization Of The Work, The Ld. Ao Has Arbitrarily Rejected The Same.

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 16.04.2021. The grounds of appeal are as under: - “1. Because, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in fact and in law in confirming the disallowance made by Assessing Officer Rs. 60,20,000/- as building expenditure

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S SHRI RAMSWAROOP CHARITABLE TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2014-2015

274 at page 290 held as under:- "4.9 The finding of the Tribunal is that the department has not established a case that the assessee had in this case not utilized the donations or income for charitable purpose. The clear finding of the Tribunal is that if the assessee had not utilized the amount for charitable purpose, it would automatically

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

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, in as much as the original assessment order dated 11-02-2016 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. That the Ld. PCIT was wrong in not passing an speaking order ignoring the submissions made by the assessee during proceeding u/s 263 rendering the order under appeal

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

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

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