U.P CIVIL SECRETARIAT PRIMARY COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

natural justice.” I.T.A. No.123/Lkw/2016 Because the learned 1st appellate authority erred in holding that “1.1 adequate opportunity was given by the assessing officer to the appellant for passing the order u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961. 1.2 Because the learned assessing officer ought to have held that the assessing officer did not allow adequate opportunity to the assessee

U.P CIVIL SECRETARIAT PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE BANK,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

natural justice.” I.T.A. No.123/Lkw/2016 Because the learned 1st appellate authority erred in holding that “1.1 adequate opportunity was given by the assessing officer to the appellant for passing the order u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961. 1.2 Because the learned assessing officer ought to have held that the assessing officer did not allow adequate opportunity to the assessee

U.P CIVIL SECRETARIAT PRIMARY COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

natural justice.” I.T.A. No.123/Lkw/2016 Because the learned 1st appellate authority erred in holding that “1.1 adequate opportunity was given by the assessing officer to the appellant for passing the order u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961. 1.2 Because the learned assessing officer ought to have held that the assessing officer did not allow adequate opportunity to the assessee

SRI SAINATH ASSOCIATES,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT-6, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Natural Justice, without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and therefore deserves to be declared a nullity. It is therefore prayed that the ad hoc disallowance

MAHESH MITTAL,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-5, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshramahesh Mittal V. Acit, Range-5 1/16, Vinay Khand Gomti Income Tax Office Ashok Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Acqpm4459B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Akshay Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

natural justice. Page 2 of 31 4. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in Confirming the order of the A.O. by failing to appreciate that the shares of M/s ACCL Were sold by the Appellant between 30-10- 2013 and 03-02-2014 whereas the report of the Investigation Wing

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

justice and judicial discipline. In view of various authoritative judicial pronouncements brought to the notice of Ld. CIT(A), analysis of nature of activities, for holding that the appellant is involved in the activities of profit making, is wholly incorrect in the eyes of law. 3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in disallowing

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

justice and judicial discipline. In view of various authoritative judicial pronouncements brought to the notice of Ld. CIT(A), analysis of nature of activities, for holding that the appellant is involved in the activities of profit making, is wholly incorrect in the eyes of law. 3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in disallowing

MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,KANPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

natural justice. 13. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 14. The appellant craves leave to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before or at the time of hearing of appeal. 5.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted before us that the CPC, Bangalore has erred

MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURE DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,KANPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

natural justice. 13. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 14. The appellant craves leave to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before or at the time of hearing of appeal. 5.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted before us that the CPC, Bangalore has erred

MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,KANPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

natural justice. 13. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 14. The appellant craves leave to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before or at the time of hearing of appeal. 5.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted before us that the CPC, Bangalore has erred

NAUSHEEN FARAH,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

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

natural justice. 14. That the assessment completed by ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful.” 2. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that he will not be pressing the grounds of appeal on legal issues as contained in the ground number 1 to 4 but will be arguing only

ZAIN ALAM,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

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

natural justice. 14. That the assessment completed by ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful.” 2. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that he will not be pressing the grounds of appeal on legal issues as contained in the ground number 1 to 4 but will be arguing only

MARGHOOB ALAM,KANPUR vs. DCUT, CC-II, KANPUR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

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

natural justice. 14. That the assessment completed by ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful.” 2. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that he will not be pressing the grounds of appeal on legal issues as contained in the ground number 1 to 4 but will be arguing only

SHAHEEN RABIA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

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

natural justice. 14. That the assessment completed by ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful.” 2. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that he will not be pressing the grounds of appeal on legal issues as contained in the ground number 1 to 4 but will be arguing only

NISHAT ARA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

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

natural justice. 14. That the assessment completed by ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful.” 2. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that he will not be pressing the grounds of appeal on legal issues as contained in the ground number 1 to 4 but will be arguing only

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

natural justice and without jurisdiction. 3. That as per ‘agreement to sell’ dated 31-03-2012, Sri Dwijendra Ram Tripathi, Sri Surendra Ram Tripathi, Sri Shailendra Ram Tripathi and Sri Rakesh Ram Tripathi (Known as Second Party to the ‘agreement to sell’) are liable to pay entire tax and other demand aroused in respect of compensation paid against the land

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

natural justice and without jurisdiction. 3. That as per ‘agreement to sell’ dated 31-03-2012, Sri Dwijendra Ram Tripathi, Sri Surendra Ram Tripathi, Sri Shailendra Ram Tripathi and Sri Rakesh Ram Tripathi (Known as Second Party to the ‘agreement to sell’) are liable to pay entire tax and other demand aroused in respect of compensation paid against the land

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

natural justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and without considering the written submission made before him. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in denying exemption under section 11read with section

LUCKNOW EVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. I.T.O., LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

natural justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and without considering the written submission made before him. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in denying exemption under section 11read with section