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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there is no parameter that

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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there is no parameter that

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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there is no parameter that

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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there is no parameter that

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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there is no parameter that

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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there is no parameter that

HAKIKAT SARAF,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(5), KANPUR

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary, Member A.Y. 2014-15 Hakikat Saraf, Income Tax Officer-2(5), 124/B/168, Govind Nagar, Vs. Kanpur Kanpur-208006 Pan:Afpps4419H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Kanpur Dated 24.01.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.47,33,000/- Under Section 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii) Of The I.T. Act, 1961, Which Addition Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law & Be Deleted. 02. Because The Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Has Arbitrarily Held, That The Difference Between The Actual Gross Consideration Rs. 1,09,34,000/- & The Stamp Value Estimated By The Stamp Valuation Authorities, Subsequently Reduced By The District Valuation Officer At Rs. 1,56,67,600/- Is Deemed Income Under Section 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii) Of The Act.

56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated. 3. The assessee was aggrieved at the addition and therefore, filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that nine tenants were occupying 90% of the property and had been there for 50 to 75 years

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

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

56,49,34,776/-\nplus Rs.1,12,73,65,536/-), as has been confirmed by the Id. CIT(A)\", has not only\ninvolved multiplicity, as mentioned above, but the same is also in deviation from the\npast practice which is not permissible in law.\n7.1\nBECAUSE the ld. 'CIT(A)' has grossly erred in upholding the denial of\nexemption under

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)

56,49,34,776/-\nplus Rs.1,12,73,65,536/-), as has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A)\", has not only\ninvolved multiplicity, as mentioned above, but the same is also in deviation from the\npast practice which is not permissible in law.\n\n7.1 BECAUSE the ld. 'CIT(A)' has grossly erred in upholding the denial of\nexemption

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

ALLIANCE NIRMAAN LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation claim and income from real estate business during the\nyear. On this point, categorical explanation was called from the\nassessee and the same has been submitted by him, which has been\nplaced on record.”\n3.\nVide impugned order dated 23.03.2022 of the PCIT, the assessment\norder dated 14/12/2019 was set aside to be framed denovo

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

56,57,616/-. (E.1) As regards the computation of book profit u/s 115JB of IT Act, it is useful to refer to provisions of law, which are reproduced below for the ease of reference: Special provision for payment of tax by certain companies. 115JB. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, where in the case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR vs. COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-5, Kanpur 84/105, Kailash Motors Building, G.T. Road, Afim Kothi, Kanpur-208003 Pan: Aaccc4267E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, 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 Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (A)- 2, Kanpur Dated 25.09.2017, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y. 2006-07 On 23.12.2008. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 5,32,366/- U/S 14A Without Taken Into Consideration That The Expenditure Incurred In Relation To Exempt Income. 02. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 99,56,258/-Without Appreciating That The Provisions Of Sec. 50C Have Been Invoked By The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Stamp Valuation Of The Property. The Assessee Has Not Claimed Before The Assessing Office To Make The Reference To The Valuation Officer U/S 55A Of It Act, 1961. 3 That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 3,20,90,164/- On Account Of Loss Claimed On Sale Of Shares Without Appreciating That The Transaction As Claimed Were Sham & Was Incorporated Only To Evade The Capital Gain Earned On The Sale Of Properties. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Ignoring The Facts Noted By The Assessing Officer Regarding The Transaction Of Sale Of Shares.

depreciation on car Rs. 33,762/- v. Misc. expenses Rs. 1,75,498/- vi. Addition on account of late deposit of ESI under section 2(24)(X) r.w.s. 36(i)(va) Rs. 7,771/- vii. Addition under section 14A Rs. 5,32,366/- Thus, addition of this amount was added to the net profit

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

Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Method of accounting - Estimation of income (GP rate) - Assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 - Assessee-company was carrying out contract of construction of roads awarded by Government - Due to various discrepancies in books of account, Assessing Officer rejected same and estimated profit at 10 per cent of gross receipts - Tribunal relying

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

Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Method of accounting - Estimation of income (GP rate) - Assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 - Assessee-company was carrying out contract of construction of roads awarded by Government - Due to various discrepancies in books of account, Assessing Officer rejected same and estimated profit at 10 per cent of gross receipts - Tribunal relying

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

Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Method of accounting - Estimation of income (GP rate) - Assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 - Assessee-company was carrying out contract of construction of roads awarded by Government - Due to various discrepancies in books of account, Assessing Officer rejected same and estimated profit at 10 per cent of gross receipts - Tribunal relying

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

56 ITR 1. In the case of Badridas Daga (supra) the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court had affirmed the view that loss resulting from embezzlement by an\nemployee or the agent of a business was admissible as deduction under section 10(1)\nof the 1922 Act (corresponding to section 28 of the 1961 Act). In the second case, the\ndecision stated

AJAY ARORA,KANPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, KANPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora

56 ITR 20 (SC);CIT v. Toshoku Ltd. [1980] 125 ITR 525 (SC); andGE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC), besides on theorder by the Agra Bench of the Tribunal in Asst. CIT v. Manufax India (in ITA Nos. 434 & 446/Agra/2015, dated 11.4.2018/copy on record). 3. I have heard the parties, and perused