AJAY ARORA,KANPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, KANPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora

9(1)(vii), the corresponding receipt is liable for tax deduction at source u/s. 195 and, in its absence, a disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i). Also would be required concomitantly is the expenditure incurred by OD towards rendering those services inasmuch as the same only would yield the income component of the receipt, on which tax is chargeable

TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Technical Associates Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 8Th Km, Faizabad Road Tax Vijaypur, Gomti Nagar Range 6 Lucknow Lucknow Pan:Aabct7365F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Santhosh Kumar Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25 06 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 06 2024 O R D E R

section 250 of the Act, sustained the addition so made by the Assessing Officer. 9. So far as computation of capital gains in case of depreciable

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

9). Now we will examine the proviso to section 2(15) with reference to above broad scheme of the Act. From the above it is evident that the main object of the assessee is development of the area as per the mandate of U- P. Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973. The activity undertaken by the Authority comes within the object

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

9). Now we will examine the proviso to section 2(15) with reference to above broad scheme of the Act. From the above it is evident that the main object of the assessee is development of the area as per the mandate of U- P. Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973. The activity undertaken by the Authority comes within the object

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

9). Now we will examine the proviso to section 2(15) with reference to above broad scheme of the Act. From the above it is evident that the main object of the assessee is development of the area as per the mandate of U- P. Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973. The activity undertaken by the Authority comes within the object

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

9). Now we will examine the proviso to section 2(15) with reference to above broad scheme of the Act. From the above it is evident that the main object of the assessee is development of the area as per the mandate of U- P. Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973. The activity undertaken by the Authority comes within the object

KHANDELWAL SOYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,RAMPUR vs. ACIT(CENTERAL), BAREILLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the\nterms indicated hereinbefore

depreciation under Section 32 of\nthe Act on the basis of \"passive use\" of the assets?\n\nB) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have\nappreciated that in the facts and circumstances of the present case\nthere was no question of \"passive use\" of the assets?\n\nC) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in ignoring

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

depreciation amounting to Rs.5,40,871/-, disallowed by\nthe AO, the order of the CIT(A) is contrary to facts, bad in law\nand the same be deleted.\n2.6.2 GROUNDS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15:\n1. Because the entire reassessment proceedings initiated u/s\n147/143(3) of the Act is without jurisdiction, bad in law and\nbe quashed.\n02. Because there

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

9 of 14 amounting to Rs.21,00,384/-, the applicant having earned income of Rs.97,48,804/-, against which, expenditure of Rs.76,48,420/- had been incurred, excluding the depreciation shown at Rs.15,67,099/-; and (5) that under the Third Proviso to Section

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

9,95,21,021 16,42,215 1.65 11% 7% Year of inception of proprietary business. 2015-16 13,45,79,821 81,66,298 6.07 11% 7% 2016-17 48,75,65,110 2,74,84,960 5.64 11% 7% Erstwhile Scrutiny u/s 143(3) dated 14.12.2011 by JAO and adhoc addition

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

9,95,21,021 16,42,215 1.65 11% 7% Year of inception of proprietary business. 2015-16 13,45,79,821 81,66,298 6.07 11% 7% 2016-17 48,75,65,110 2,74,84,960 5.64 11% 7% Erstwhile Scrutiny u/s 143(3) dated 14.12.2011 by JAO and adhoc addition

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

9,95,21,021 16,42,215 1.65 11% 7% Year of inception of proprietary business. 2015-16 13,45,79,821 81,66,298 6.07 11% 7% 2016-17 48,75,65,110 2,74,84,960 5.64 11% 7% Erstwhile Scrutiny u/s 143(3) dated 14.12.2011 by JAO and adhoc addition

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

section of society for \ncommercial area as certain percentage has to be made available for local shops and \nshops for barber, vegetable vendor etc. which are disposed-off through lottery \nsystem. It is this leftover part from 5% of saleable area that is sold though auction. \nFurthermore, the disposal of residential properties is done by an Authority as per \nthe

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

section of society for \ncommercial area as certain percentage has to be made available for local shops and \nshops for barber, vegetable vendor etc. which are disposed-off through lottery \nsystem. It is this leftover part from 5% of saleable area that is sold though auction. \nFurthermore, the disposal of residential properties is done by an Authority as per \nthe

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

section of society for \ncommercial area as certain percentage has to be made available for local shops and \nshops for barber, vegetable vendor etc. which are disposed-off through lottery \nsystem. It is this leftover part from 5% of saleable area that is sold though auction. \nFurthermore, the disposal of residential properties is done by an Authority as per \nthe

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 154 of the Act. In the present case, we find that the issue in the original proceedings and in the proceedings u/s. 154 are different therefore the ground of appeal taken by the assessee as additional ground of appeal is rejected and the ld. AR was asked to proceed with his regular grounds of appeal

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

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

depreciation amounting to Rs.5,40,871/-, disallowed by the AO, the order of the CIT(A) is contrary to facts, bad in law and the same be deleted. 2.6.2 GROUNDS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15: 1. Because the entire reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147/143(3) of the Act is without jurisdiction, bad in law and be quashed. 02. Because there

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

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

depreciation amounting to Rs.5,40,871/-, disallowed by the AO, the order of the CIT(A) is contrary to facts, bad in law and the same be deleted. 2.6.2 GROUNDS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15: 1. Because the entire reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147/143(3) of the Act is without jurisdiction, bad in law and be quashed. 02. Because there