DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

234 ITR 541. 8. The Ld.CIT(A)-2, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in in directing to compute the income in the order u/s 143(3)/263 on the basis of returned income and not on the basis of assessed income u/s 143(3) without appreciating the fact that the provisions of section

UP GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.743 & 746/Lkw/2024 & Ita No. 30/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Vs. Assessing Officer, Nfac Welfare, Lucknow Pan:Aaatu0957A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 23.10.2024, 28.10.2024 & 2.01.2024 In The Appeals Preferred Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3), The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aac(1) & The Penalty Order Under Section 270A. The Grounds Of Appeal In These Three Appeals Are As Under:-

disallowable. However, in case these amounts have been paid within the timelines as specified under the respective acts, the assessee may bring the same to the knowledge of the ld. AO during the course of the remanded proceedings. Ground no. 8 is accordingly decided. 17. Ground no. 9 relates to the imposing of interest under section 234

U.P SAMAJ KALYAN NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS U.P STATE CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.),LUCKNOW vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, LUCKNOW

234 ITR 541.\n8. The Ld.CIT(A)-2, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in in directing to\ncompute the income in the order u/s 143(3)/263 on the basis of returned income\nand not on the basis of assessed income u/s 143(3) without appreciating the fact\nthat the provisions of Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowed despite the assessee having been engaged in the education activities, duly registered under section 12A of he Act. (ii) That the above exemption has been denied invoking the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, without giving any specific findings in this regard. Page 18 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 4.1 Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowed despite the assessee having been engaged in the education activities, duly registered under section 12A of he Act. (ii) That the above exemption has been denied invoking the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, without giving any specific findings in this regard. Page 18 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 4.1 Section

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

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we Page 36 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) don’t see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income

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

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we Page 36 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) don’t see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income

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

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we Page 36 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) don’t see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income

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

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we Page 36 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) don’t see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income

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

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we Page 36 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) don’t see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income

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

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we Page 36 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) don’t see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income

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

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we Page 36 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) don’t see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income

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

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we Page 36 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) don’t see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income

DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,KANPUR NAGAR vs. CIT(A) NFAC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 143(3) of the I.T. Act on 27/12/2016 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,45,88,299/- (rounded off to Rs.1,45,88,300) and made addition of Rs.1,69,422/- on account of disallowance of I.T.A. No.466/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2014-15 2 depreciation and further addition of Rs.90,36,234

SMT. MANJU SINGH,KANPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2), KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Manju Singh V. The Ito L-12, Gsvm Medical College Ward 3(2) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aebps3395D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 12.10.2021, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Engaged In Trading Of Shares, Securities & Mutual Funds. The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 11.09.2015, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3,05,350/-. In The Computation Of Income, The Assessee Had Claimed Rs.55,99,694/- As Exempt Income Under Section 10(38) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) On Sale Of Mutual Funds. However, As Per The Assessing Officer (Ao), The Assessee Had Earned Exempt Income Of Rs.50,81,234/- On Sale Of Mutual Funds And, Accordingly, The Assessee Had Claimed Excess

234/- on sale of Mutual Funds and, accordingly, the assessee had claimed excess ITA No.163/LKW/2022 Page 2 of 7 amount of Rs.5,18,640/- as exempt income under section 10(38) of the Act. The AO, therefore, added the excess amount of Rs.5,18,640/-, claimed by the assessee as exempt under section

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

disallowing share loss by the AO affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) were those that out of the four blocks of shares delivery of three blocks were received after five months and the price was also paid after five months, but were immediately sold at a loss. The other grounds were that the share broker only in respect

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

disallowing share loss by the AO affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) were those that out of the four blocks of shares delivery of three blocks were received after five months and the price was also paid after five months, but were immediately sold at a loss. The other grounds were that the share broker only in respect

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

disallowing share loss by the AO affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) were those that out of the four blocks of shares delivery of three blocks were received after five months and the price was also paid after five months, but were immediately sold at a loss. The other grounds were that the share broker only in respect

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

disallowing share loss by the AO affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) were those that out of the four blocks of shares delivery of three blocks were received after five months and the price was also paid after five months, but were immediately sold at a loss. The other grounds were that the share broker only in respect