M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

section 8(2) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 disallowing the exemption A.Ys. 1995-96 & 1996-97 M/s U.P. State Industrial Development Ltd claimed by the assessee under the Interest Tax Act and made the following additions to the chargeable interest of the assessee for the A.Y.1995-96; i. Interest received on deposits Rs. 98,43,985/- ii. Interest received

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is held to be partly allowed

disallowing the exemption\nclaimed by the assessee under the Interest Tax Act and made the following\nadditions to the chargeable interest of the assessee for the A.Y.1995-96;\ni. Interest received on deposits Rs.98,43,985/-\nii. Interest received on loans and others Rs.20,13,599/-\niii. Interest received on UPSEB loan Rs.1,70,17,987/-\niv. Interest received on advances

VIDYUT TRANSMISSION KARMACHARI VETAN BHOGI CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. CPC BANGALORE/ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

10 of the Paper book. It is prayed that the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) state as under :- "An incorrect claim if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return" It is further prayed that in the Explanation to section 143(1), the Act has layed out the situations which shall be considered

M/S ALLIANCE BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Alliance Builders & Asst.Commissioner Of V. Contractors Ltd Income Tax, Central Circle-2 C/O 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Allen Ganj, Kanpur. Pan:Aaeca8217A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 11 2024 O R D E R

section 142(2C), discretionary power has been given to A.O empowering to extend time suo motu, The proceedings under the Income Tax Act are quasi judicial. In the case appellant no information was passed on by the A.O to assessee. Discretion’ means that something is to be done within the discretion of the authorities that something is to be done

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

ii) of the Act, it was not entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Act on the entire surplus of the assessee amounting to Rs.30,48,01,279/- and therefore, she confirmed this addition also and dismissed the appeal of the assessee trust on these grounds. She also rejected the plea of the assessee that the Assessing Officer

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNIAN, LTD. ,LAKHIPUR KHERI vs. ITO WARD-3(4), LAKHIPUR-1

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance of deduction as incorrect claim by way of adjustment u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of I. T. Act. 4. That the addition confirmed is highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient time and opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon by CIT(A).” (B) This appeal

CO-OP-CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION GOLA,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. ITO RANGE-3(4), LAKHIMPUR KHERI-1

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaco-Op Cane Development The Income Tax Officer, V. Union Gola Range-3(4) C/O Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Lakhimpur Kheri-262701. Lakhimpur Kheri-262701, Up. Pan:Aaaac1960A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 10 2024 O R D E R

10 2024 O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 07/02/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [“learned CIT(A)”] for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “(1). That

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ii) of the Act, it was not entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Act\non the entire surplus of the assessee amounting to Rs.30,48,01,279/- and\ntherefore, she confirmed this addition also and dismissed the appeal of the\nassessee trust on these grounds. She also rejected the plea of the assessee that the\nAssessing Officer

SHRAMIK VIKAS SAHKARI SHRRAM SAMVIDA SAMITI LTD.,KANPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 1(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2019-20 Shramik Vikas Sahkari V. The Assessing Officer Shrram Samvida Samiti Ltd, Circle 1(1)(1) 135-K-2, Nankari, Iit Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R

25 07 2024 Date of pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (hereinafter called “the ld. CIT(A”) in short) for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. The brief facts of the case are that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

25% of legal expenses as had been made in the assessment.\n\n4. BECAUSE the amount of expenses claimed under the above mentioned head was\nfully supported by proper bills and vouchers and the same were duly accounted for in\nthe books of account which had been subjected to twin audits and no defect or\ndiscrepancy having been found

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

ii)the Hon'ble ITAT in its own case, in ITA No. 703/Luc/03, order dated 25.07.2005 has already held that the object of the appellant are the objects of General Public Utility falling in the definition of charitable purposes as given in section 2(15) of the I.T. Act (iii) accordingly, the appellant has already been held to be eligible

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

ii)the Hon'ble ITAT in its own case, in ITA No. 703/Luc/03, order dated 25.07.2005 has \nalready held that the object of the appellant are the objects of General Public Utility falling \nin the definition of charitable purposes as given in section 2(15) of the I.T. Act \n(iii) accordingly, the appellant has already been held

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

ii)the Hon'ble ITAT in its own case, in ITA No. 703/Luc/03, order dated 25.07.2005 has \nalready held that the object of the appellant are the objects of General Public Utility falling \nin the definition of charitable purposes as given in section 2(15) of the I.T. Act \n(iii) accordingly, the appellant has already been held

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

ii)the Hon'ble ITAT in its own case, in ITA No. 703/Luc/03, order dated 25.07.2005 has \nalready held that the object of the appellant are the objects of General Public Utility falling \nin the definition of charitable purposes as given in section 2(15) of the I.T. Act.\n(iii) accordingly, the appellant has already been held

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

25% of legal expenses as had been made in the assessment.\n4. BECAUSE the amount of expenses claimed under the above mentioned head was\nfully supported by proper bills and vouchers and the same were duly accounted for in\nthe books of account which had been subjected to twin audits and no defect or\ndiscrepancy having been found and specified

NETPLAST PVT.LTD.,KANPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(3)(1), KANPUR

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

25% on such tax and cess on\nthe addition of Rs.84,00,000/- made u/s.69C of the Act.\nAddition: Rs.84,00,000/-\nSubmissions:\nThe assessee company through its director Shri Arpit Agarwal, duly\nauthorised purchased an agricultural land admeasuring 1.2430\nhectare situated at Gram Raipur, Tehsil Akbarpur, Distt. Kanpur Dehat\nfrom one Smt. Nirmala Devi vide purchase deed executed

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

25% of legal expenses as had been made in the assessment.\n\n4. BECAUSE the amount of expenses claimed under the above mentioned head was\nfully supported by proper bills and vouchers and the same were duly accounted for in\nthe books of account which had been subjected to twin audits and no defect or\ndiscrepancy having been found

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section