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

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

disallowances of expenses\nwhile invoking provision of section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is\nestimated.\n\n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining deduction addition u/s 80G of the extent to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- out of Rs.14,06,000/- allowed part relief to the\nextent of Rs.6

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

80G", "54F", "68", "69A", "56(2)(vii)(b)"], "issues": "The primary issue was the validity of assessment orders passed in search cases where the AO allegedly did not properly apply for approval under section 153D of the Act. Other issues involved the disallowance

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

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

2 of 18\n4. That the Learned CIT Appeals has erred in confirming the following\nadditions on account of under mentioned disallowances which are illegal and\nliable to be deleted.\n(i) Rs.35,00,000 on account of disallowance of Commission expenses.\n(ii) Rs.9,60,000 on account of disallowance of Advertisement expenses.\n(iii) Part allowance on disallowance

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

2)(vii)(b)", "145(3)", "40A(3)", "80G", "54F"], "issues": "The primary issues revolve around the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 and the validity of approvals granted under Section 153D. Additionally, disputes exist regarding the estimation of net profit rates, disallowances

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

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

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

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowances of Rs. 4,03,000/- against donation of Rs. 8,06,000/- paid to Ram JanamBhumi. The said donation is eligible u/s 80G and may kindly be allowed as deduction claimed. Issue No. 14 – AY 2022-23 Addition u/s 69A – Cash found Rs. 43,12,800/- That during the course of search cash amounting Rs. 35,31,800/- from

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowances of Rs. 4,03,000/- against donation of Rs. 8,06,000/- paid to Ram JanamBhumi. The said donation is eligible u/s 80G and may kindly be allowed as deduction claimed. Issue No. 14 – AY 2022-23 Addition u/s 69A – Cash found Rs. 43,12,800/- That during the course of search cash amounting Rs. 35,31,800/- from

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

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowances of Rs. 4,03,000/- against donation of Rs. 8,06,000/- paid to Ram JanamBhumi. The said donation is eligible u/s 80G and may kindly be allowed as deduction claimed. Issue No. 14 – AY 2022-23 Addition u/s 69A – Cash found Rs. 43,12,800/- That during the course of search cash amounting Rs. 35,31,800/- from

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

disallowances of expenses \nwhile invoking provision of section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is \nestimated. \n\n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while \nsustaining the addition deduction claimed u/s 80G of the extent of \ndonation of Rs.1,50,000/- out of Rs.14,06,000/- allowed part relief to the \nextent

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA UP

disallowances of expenses\non provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is estimated.\n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,000/- out of total addition of Rs.14,06,000/- out\nof donation deduction u/s 80G to the extent of extent of Rs.6

SHRI GOVERDHAN SARASWATI VIDHYA MANDIR,DHARAMPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 80G of the Act. 4. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. It is an undisputed fact that the CIT (Exemptions) wanted certain information for considering approval u/s 80G of the Act and the assessee replied to those queries vide letter dated 08/02/2024. This fact has been noted by CIT (Exemptions

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA UP

2, Civil Lines, Gonda u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961,\nwithout appreciating the fact that the percentage of valuation found in total\ninvestment on construction of building as declared by the assessee and as\nestimated by the Valuation Officer, has been worked out at 25.4%\n(1 3164654X100/12460146), which is over and above 10%.\n3. Whether on facts

KHAIRABAD EYS HOSPITAL SOCIETY,KANPUR vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrakhairabad Eye Hospital V. Income Tax Officer Society (Exemption) 112/202, Swaroop Nagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Kanpur-208002. Lines, Kanpur-208001. Pan: Aaatk3893P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Pradeep Seth, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

2 pages. 5) That without prejudice to the foregoing grounds the learned Addl./Jt.C.1.T.(Appeals) has further erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the A.O. had invoked the provisions of Section 13 of the I.T. Act without discharging the onus of proving that the person specified U/s 13(3) of the I.T. Act derived any undue