ALOK KUMAR RUNGTA,LUCKNOW vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2014-15 Alok Kumar Rungta V. National Faceless Appeal B-40 Flat No.34 Manoram Centre Apartment Aliganj, Lucknow- Delhi. 226024. Pan:Ajqpr0755G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Prakash Agarwal, Advocate Shri Akshay Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 10 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 01 2026 O R D E R

section 150(1) of the Act. The case laws relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the same are clearly distinguishable. The assessee ought to have challenged the Page 6 of 8 findings of the Ld. CIT(A) passed in appeal against the original assessment order

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

SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance of Rs.70,64,782/- on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which addition is contrary to facts, bad in law and be deleted. 2. Because the CIT(A) has filed to appreciate, that all transaction taken place between the assessee and M/s. R.K. Agro Pvt. Ltd. are all commercial/business transactions carried

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

disallowed them. Besides this, he also made a\ndisallowance of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-ax Act, 1961. This order\nwas revised and cancelled by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the\nAct on the ground that the expenses claimed for the creation of brand\nwere capital expenditure for creating an intangible asset. On appeal by\nthe assessee

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(4), RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Bareilly V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2472C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Amritsar V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs4654E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Kanpur(I) V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2468Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Guwahati V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2462E (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of capital expenditure of Rs. 912,631 appearing as addition to Fixed Assets. During the course of remand proceedings it was explained by the ARs that the same were incurred on purchase of light vehicle and electrical equipment during the financial year under consideration. The relevant purchase order, tax invoice, receipt and cheque payment detail, insurance receipt and copy

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

disallowances, which is not in accordance with law and which needs to be deleted. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 27 6. Learned D. R., on the other hand, vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the objects of the assessee may at first appear to be of general public utility, however, sale and purchase

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

disallowances, which is not in accordance with law and which needs to be deleted. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 27 6. Learned D. R., on the other hand, vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the objects of the assessee may at first appear to be of general public utility, however, sale and purchase

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

disallowances, which is not in accordance with law and which needs to be deleted. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 27 6. Learned D. R., on the other hand, vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the objects of the assessee may at first appear to be of general public utility, however, sale and purchase

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

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

disallowances, which is not in accordance with law and which needs to be deleted. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 27 6. Learned D. R., on the other hand, vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the objects of the assessee may at first appear to be of general public utility, however, sale and purchase

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

disallowances, which is not in accordance with law and which needs to be deleted. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 27 6. Learned D. R., on the other hand, vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the objects of the assessee may at first appear to be of general public utility, however, sale and purchase

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

section 68 of the I.T. Act, this disallowance of consequential interest will not survive. Hence, we delete the addition. 9. The next issue in this appeal of the assessee is as regards to the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the estimated expenses at Rs.2,42,745/- @ 15%. 10. We have

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P FOREST CORPORATION, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2016-17

disallowed the exemption u/s 11 and had rightly made the addition and in this respect relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. Learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the issue has been settled vide various orders of the Tribunal in favour of I.T.A. No.574/Lkw/2019 Assessment Year:2016-17 3 the assessee

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

section 11(2). Arguing on the issue of Form No. 10, the ld. Special Counsel argued that matters that had to be examined was whether the application was genuine or not? Whether the funds have been applied for specified purposes? Because the allowability was based on application of income. On the issue of infrastructure fund, Vambay fund and revolving fund

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

section 11(2). Arguing on the issue of Form No. 10, the ld. Special Counsel argued that matters that had to be examined was whether the application was genuine or not? Whether the funds have been applied for specified purposes? Because the allowability was based on application of income. On the issue of infrastructure fund, Vambay fund and revolving fund

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

Accordingly all four additional grounds filed by the revenue in Appeal numbers 532 & 533 of 2014, stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

section 11(2). Arguing on the issue of Form No. 10, the ld. Special Counsel argued that matters that had to be examined was whether the application was genuine or not? Whether the funds have been applied for specified purposes? Because the allowability was based on application of income. On the issue of infrastructure fund, Vambay fund and revolving fund

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

section 11(2). Arguing on the issue of Form No. 10, the ld. Special Counsel argued that matters that had to be examined was whether the application was genuine or not? Whether the funds have been applied for specified purposes? Because the allowability was based on application of income. On the issue of infrastructure fund, Vambay fund and revolving fund

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

section 11(2). Arguing on the issue of Form No. 10, the ld. Special Counsel argued that matters that had to be examined was whether the application was genuine or not? Whether the funds have been applied for specified purposes? Because the allowability was based on application of income. On the issue of infrastructure fund, Vambay fund and revolving fund