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

45,925/-to tax, which had been claimed as exempt under section 11(1) of the Act. The ld. AO also disallowed the accumulation of Rs. 22,00,00,000/- under section 11(2) of the Act and furthermore added back the same of Rs.14,96,91,583/- claimed as purchase cost of fixed assets and application of income. However

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

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

45 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act in a case falling under the proviso thereto, makes the action taken by the Assessing Officer wholly without jurisdiction. We agree with these observations of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and are of the view that in the present

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

45 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act in a case falling under the proviso thereto, makes the action taken by the Assessing Officer wholly without jurisdiction. We agree with these observations of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and are of the view that in the present

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUCKNOW, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW vs. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., VIBHUTI KHAND GOMTI NAGAR LKO

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

4), i.e., from the Assessee’s business unit involved in generation of power. The claim of the Assessee is that in computing its ‘total income’, deductions available to it have to be set-off against the ‘gross total income’, while the Revenue contends that it is only the ‘business income’ which has to be taken into account for the purpose

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

4), i.e., from the Assessee’s business unit involved in generation of power. The claim of the Assessee is that in computing its ‘total income’, deductions available to it have to be set-off against the ‘gross total income’, while the Revenue contends that it is only the ‘business income’ which has to be taken into account for the purpose

M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. D/ACIT-1,CENTRAL-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

4), i.e., from the Assessee’s business unit involved in generation of power. The claim of the Assessee is that in computing its ‘total income’, deductions available to it have to be set-off against the ‘gross total income’, while the Revenue contends that it is only the ‘business income’ which has to be taken into account for the purpose

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BAREILLY vs. M/S L.H SUGAR FACTORY PVT. LTD.,, PILIBHIT

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

4 he has made an addition u/s 14A of the Act. Learned A. R. submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee, vide letter dated 20/03/2015, copy of which is available at pages 12 & 13 of the paper book, had explained the fact that no disallowance can be made u/s 14A. It was submitted that the assessee

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

4-6-1991\nCirculars and Notifications\nNotification No. SO. 69€, dated 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

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

depreciation of Rs. 3,14,204/-. 4. That the Learned AO has erred in making disallowance on account of unsecured loan of Rs. 2,57,00,000/- 5. That the Ld. AO has erred in making disallowance on account of Commission of Rs, 12,85,000/-. 6. That the Ld. AO has erred in making disallowance on account of Charity

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

depreciation of Rs. 3,14,204/-. 4. That the Learned AO has erred in making disallowance on account of unsecured loan of Rs. 2,57,00,000/- 5. That the Ld. AO has erred in making disallowance on account of Commission of Rs, 12,85,000/-. 6. That the Ld. AO has erred in making disallowance on account of Charity

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

depreciation of Rs. 3,14,204/-. 4. That the Learned AO has erred in making disallowance on account of unsecured loan of Rs. 2,57,00,000/- 5. That the Ld. AO has erred in making disallowance on account of Commission of Rs, 12,85,000/-. 6. That the Ld. AO has erred in making disallowance on account of Charity

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

depreciation of Rs. 3,14,204/-. 4. That the Learned AO has erred in making disallowance on account of unsecured loan of Rs. 2,57,00,000/- 5. That the Ld. AO has erred in making disallowance on account of Commission of Rs, 12,85,000/-. 6. That the Ld. AO has erred in making disallowance on account of Charity

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

depreciation of Rs. 3,14,204/-. 4. That the Learned AO has erred in making disallowance on account of unsecured loan of Rs. 2,57,00,000/- 5. That the Ld. AO has erred in making disallowance on account of Commission of Rs, 12,85,000/-. 6. That the Ld. AO has erred in making disallowance on account of Charity

SHRI RAJEEV JAIN,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Rajeev Jain V. The Ito-3 15, Plot No.17 Kanpur Singh Engg. Compound 84/21, Fazalganj Kanpur - 12 Tan/Pan:Abfpj1327D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Alka Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29 11 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 12 2022 O R D E R

4. On the other hand, the ld. CIT (DR) only drew our attention to the findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee is unable to prove the vital ingredients of identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction. She referred to paragraph 5.9 of the ld. CIT(A)’s order, which reads as under: “5.9 In view

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

45,71,123/- by making certain additions. 4. Later on, the case was set-aside as per provision of Sec. 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 28.03.2018 (F. No. Pr. CII-2/Tech/Lko/263/AY 2013-14/UPSCIDC/2017-18/1131) OF THE Ld. Pr CIT-2, Lucknow. Accordingly, notices u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 961 along

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Y. 2013-14

45 to 134. The AO had not doubted the identity of the donor and genuineness of the transaction. As per sub Section (3) of 115BBC, ‘anonymous donation’ mean voluntary 14 contribution where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of identity indicating the name and address of the person making such contribution. In view of these facts

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

4 months from December 2017 till April 2018 if a lender M/s. Silver Agencies Pvt. Ltd. who complied with the notice issued u/s 133(6) for AY 2015-16 before the same AO, changed its address then AO before reaching a different conclusion that the same lender is bogus and non- existent, should have given an opportunity to the appellant

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

4 months from December 2017 till April 2018 if a lender M/s. Silver Agencies Pvt. Ltd. who complied with the notice issued u/s 133(6) for AY 2015-16 before the same AO, changed its address then AO before reaching a different conclusion that the same lender is bogus and non- existent, should have given an opportunity to the appellant