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

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

45,925/-to tax, which had been claimed as exempt\nunder section 11(1) of the Act. The ld. AO also disallowed the accumulation of Rs.\n22,00,00,000/- under section 11(2

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

45,17,400/- in the assessment year 2008-09. The ld. AO analyzed the functions and powers of the Board as laid down in section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter known as UPAEVPA, 1965) and came to the conclusion that a plain reading of the same revealed that they outlined the features

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

45,17,400/- in the assessment year 2008-09. The ld. AO analyzed the\nfunctions and powers of the Board as laid down in section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh\nAwas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter known as UPAEVPA,\n1965) and came to the conclusion that a plain reading of the same revealed that they\noutlined the features

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

45,17,400/- in the assessment year 2008-09. The ld. AO analyzed the\nfunctions and powers of the Board as laid down in section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh\nAwas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter known as UPAEVPA,\n1965) and came to the conclusion that a plain reading of the same revealed that they\noutlined the features

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

45,17,400/- in the assessment year 2008-09. The ld. AO analyzed the\nfunctions and powers of the Board as laid down in section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh\nAwas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter known as UPAEVPA,\n1965) and came to the conclusion that a plain reading of the same revealed that they\noutlined the features

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

45,17,400/- in the assessment year 2008-09. The ld. AO analyzed the\nfunctions and powers of the Board as laid down in section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh\nAwas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter known as UPAEVPA,\n1965) and came to the conclusion that a plain reading of the same revealed that they\noutlined the features

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

45,17,400/- in the assessment year 2008-09. The ld. AO analyzed the\nfunctions and powers of the Board as laid down in section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh\nAwas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter known as UPAEVPA,\n1965) and came to the conclusion that a plain reading of the same revealed that they\noutlined the features

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 2 (22) (e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are\nunjust, illegal and arbitrary.\n4. That the additions made amounting to Rs.13,26,600/- u/s.41(1) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 are unjust and on the facts illegal and arbitrary.\n5. The disallowances of Rs.10,00,000/- made out of packing expenses\nwithout proper verification that the entire

UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

2(24)(xviii) read with Section 145B(3) as\nwell as ICDS, and then the corresponding expenditures actually incurred whether\nby the appellant or by the executing agencies as the case may be for the specified\nobjects.\n6. 20. From the Income & Expenditure Account furnished by the appellant during\nthe course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the surplus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT\nAND\nSHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)

2(24)(xviii) read with Section 145B(3) as\nwell as ICDS, and then the corresponding expenditures actually incurred whether\nby the appellant or by the executing agencies as the case may be for the specified\nobjects.\n\n6. 20. From the Income & Expenditure Account furnished by the appellant during\nthe course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

2 SOT 811 (2005)\nOf Section 263, read with section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nRevision orders prejudicial to interest of revenue -Assessment year 2000-\n01 Whether assessment order which has been subject-matter of\nproceeding under section 263 may be a cryptic one but that itself does not\nrender assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT, (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

45,53,688/- on account of applying NP rate @ 11% on\ntotal turnover after rejecting the book result shown, in Section 145(3) of the Act,\nwithout appreciating that the trading results shown by the assessee were\nfound open to verification and were unreliable.\n\n2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case

VIJAY PAL SINGH,HARDOI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowances without proper opportunity. 29. Accordingly, the assessment order dated 22.09.2021, framed without awaiting the valuation report in violation of the statutory mandate under section 50C(2) read with section 153, as well as Accordingly, the assessment order dated 22.05 2021, framed without awaiting the valuation report in dated 20.11.2024 passed under section 154 on t((2) read with section

SACHIN VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

45,000/- on a account of unexplained share application money received us. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. That the assessment completed by learned assessing officer is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful. 7. That the learned assessing officer has erred in not providing proper and adequate opportunity to the appellant.” I.T.A. No.48/Lkw/2022 “1. That the notice issued and assessment

M/S STANDARD FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT LTD,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

45,000/- on a account of unexplained share application money received us. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. That the assessment completed by learned assessing officer is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful. 7. That the learned assessing officer has erred in not providing proper and adequate opportunity to the appellant.” I.T.A. No.48/Lkw/2022 “1. That the notice issued and assessment

KAMAL KANT VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

45,000/- on a account of unexplained share application money received us. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. That the assessment completed by learned assessing officer is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful. 7. That the learned assessing officer has erred in not providing proper and adequate opportunity to the appellant.” I.T.A. No.48/Lkw/2022 “1. That the notice issued and assessment

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

45,71,123/- by making certain additions. 4. Later on, the case was set-aside as per provision of Sec. 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 28.03.2018 (F. No. Pr. CII-2/Tech/Lko/263/AY 2013-14/UPSCIDC/2017-18/1131) OF THE Ld. Pr CIT-2, Lucknow. Accordingly, notices u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 961 along

M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. D/ACIT-1,CENTRAL-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

2) of Section 80A of the Act provides that the aggregate amount of the deductions under Chapter VI-A shall not exceed the ‘gross total income’ of the Assessee. We are in agreement with the Appellate Authority that Section 80AB of the Act which deals with determination of deductions under Part C of Chapter VI-A is with respect only