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

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

disallowed due to lack of specific purpose. Capital expenditure was allowed as application of income. Cash deposits were restored to the AO for re-examination. Additions related to donations to related trusts were partly allowed/deleted based on misinterpretation of Section 13(1)(c).", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "250", "11", "12", "12A", "12AA(3

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

disallowed despite the assessee having been engaged in the education activities, duly and cancellation of registration under section 12A of the Act is subjudice. (iii) 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. A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 8. The learned authorities below

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

3 of Form No.10.\nFurthermore, he noted that the original Form No. 10-B furnished with the return\nhad contained a note that there is no income accumulated or set apart for specified\npurposes under section 11(2). Thus, he held that the assessee had failed to meet the\nrequirements of section 11(2)(a) of the Act and therefore

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

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

3 of Form No. 10. Furthermore, he noted that the original Form No. 10-B furnished with the return had contained a note that there is no income accumulated or set apart for specified purposes under section 11(2). Thus, he held that the assessee had failed to meet the requirements of section

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

3 of Form No.10.\nFurthermore, he noted that the original Form No. 10-B furnished with the return\nhad contained a note that there is no income accumulated or set apart for specified\npurposes under section 11(2). Thus, he held that the assessee had failed to meet the\nrequirements of section 11(2)(a) of the Act and therefore

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

3 of Form No.10.\nFurthermore, he noted that the original Form No. 10-B furnished with the return\nhad contained a note that there is no income accumulated or set apart for specified\npurposes under section 11(2). Thus, he held that the assessee had failed to meet the\nrequirements of section 11(2)(a) of the Act and therefore

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

3 of Form No.10.\nFurthermore, he noted that the original Form No. 10-B furnished with the return\nhad contained a note that there is no income accumulated or set apart for specified\npurposes under section 11(2). Thus, he held that the assessee had failed to meet the\nrequirements of section 11(2)(a) of the Act and therefore

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

section 11, did not consider the findings of the AO with\nrespect to section 11(2), section 13(1)(d) and section 13(3). He has pointed out that\nonce the ld. CIT(A) had held that the income of the assessee should be computed in\nthe manner specified in section 11, taking into account information given in the\naudit

CHARAK HELTH CARE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-CC-2, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

3,82,80,430/- by disallowing the application towards charitable purposes and raised a demand of Rs. 1,53,41,780/- alongwith interest under section 234A, 234B

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

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

3 and 4 whereas Ground No. 1\nand additional ground are dismissed. The other grounds raised\ni.e. ground no. 5 & 6 in IT(SS)A. No.91/LKW/2022 are also\nallowed since the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act is\nconsequential and disallowance u/s 80G of the Act of\nRs.3,75,000/- is not based on any incriminating evidence. Rest

SKYHIGH INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-6(1), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaand\Nshri, Nikhil Choudhary\Nita No. 242/Lkw/2025\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nskyhigh Infrastructures Pvt\Nltd\Nv.\Ncp-2 Ii Floor, Gomti Plaza,\Nvikas Khand, Gomti Nagar,\Nlucknow-226010.\Nincome Tax Officer-6(1)\Npratyaksh Kar Bhawan,\Nlucknow-226001.\Npan:Aatcs1687B\N(Appellant)\N(Respondent)\Nappellant By:\Nshri P. K. Kapoor, Ca\Nrespondent By:\Nshri Amit Kumar, Dr\Ndate Of Hearing:\N10 06 2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N31 07 2025\Norder\Nper Nikhil Choudhary.:\Nthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of\Nthe Learned Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi\Nu/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, For Short) Dated\N17.01.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of\Nthe Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Assessing\Nofficer U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 28.12.2019. The Grounds Of\Nappeal Are As Under: -\N“1.

3. BECAUSE the Id. “CIT(A)", while upholding the addition of Rs.39,39,205/-, \nfailed to appreciate that the books of accounts were audited and the Assessing\nOfficer had made ad-hoc disallowance of expense without considering ledger\naccounts furnished by “appellant” in support of the expense.\n6. BECAUSE the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment Order

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. J/DCIT-CC,, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

3 of 16 basis of change of opinion which is not permissible as per the law well settled consequently the Id. "CIT(A)" should have held the re- assessment order as illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 8. BECAUSE the sanction for initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act was not accorded as per provisions of section

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

3 of 16 basis of change of opinion which is not permissible as per the law well settled consequently the Id. "CIT(A)" should have held the re- assessment order as illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 8. BECAUSE the sanction for initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act was not accorded as per provisions of section

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

3 of 16 basis of change of opinion which is not permissible as per the law well settled consequently the Id. "CIT(A)" should have held the re- assessment order as illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 8. BECAUSE the sanction for initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act was not accorded as per provisions of section

BRIGHT LAND COLLEGE,,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Bright Land College, Vs. Income Tax Officer 538A / 543/5, Triveni Nagar (Exemption), Lucknow, The Sitapur Road, Lucknow Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Pan:Aaatb4391F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed On 17.10.2022 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order, Which Is Unlawful, Unjustified & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order Without Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding Ad Hoc Disallowance Of Expense Of Rs. 1,54,57,795/- Against The Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of Income-Tax Act Without Following The Procedure Laid Down In Sub-Section (1) Of Section 143 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961. 4. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Granting Exemption U/S 11 & 12 Of The I. T. Act, 1961. 1 Bright Land College A.Y. 2013-14

3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in upholding ad hoc disallowance of expense of Rs. 1,54,57,795/- against the order passed u/s 143(1) of Income-tax Act without following the procedure laid down in sub-section (1) of section 143 of Income

SARVJEET SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2, FAIZABAD

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2014-15 Sarvjeet Singh Income Tax Officer-Ii V. R-116, Nehru Enclave, Gomti Krishna Palace, Annexe, Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Civil Lines, Faizabad- 224001. Pan:Aujps0401N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Present For The Assessee Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12 11 2024 O R D E R

Section 234B amounting to Rs.2,98,649/-. 8. Because the learned CIT(A), NFAC has passed the appellate order on the basis of conjectures and surmises and without considering the facts, the applicable law and without application of mind. 9. Because the learned CIT(A), NFAC did not allow the assessee sufficient opportunity to make compliance of the reasons relied

MR.BHUPENDRA KUMAR TIWARI,GONDA vs. ITO-6(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Ys. 2021-22 Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tiwari, Vs. Ito, P.S. Bhitaree-1, Wazirganj, Ward 6(1) Distt. Gonda Lucknow Pan Agmpt 0366J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024 O R D E R

3 chapter VI-A by the assessee against which deduction wrongly disallowed for Rs. 1,50,000/-. 4. BECAUSE the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making assessment u/s 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961 as cash was deposited in the bank out of amount received from close relatives for the purpose of land purchase, therefore cash deposited

RAJESH KUMAR,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTE(NFAC), DELHI, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

3. The Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in making and confirming the addition of Rs. 1,48,76,000/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act. 4. The Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs.15,500/- as Income from other sources