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)

housing projects and multi-storeyed buildings (residential/commercial/malls). It consists of ten partners. Eight of them are land owning companies (‘LOC’, for short) who brought in rights over the land owned by them. Mangalya Township Private Limited, the ninth partner, provided finance. The tenth partner, M/s Sahara Prime City Limited (‘SPCL’, for short) brought in rights over its land as well

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

house property situated at 57, Laxmanpuri, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. However, Ld. AO rejected the claim of assessee on following ground being details filed in ITR in AL schedule:- i. opp. VikasBhawan, Pant Nagar, Civil Lines, Gonda ii. Balrampur iii. Poly opp. VikasBhawan, Pant Nagar, Civil Lines, Gonda iv. 57, Laxmanpuri, Indira Nagar, Lucknow Ignoring the submission of assessee and details

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

house property situated at 57, Laxmanpuri, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. However, Ld. AO rejected the claim of assessee on following ground being details filed in ITR in AL schedule:- i. opp. VikasBhawan, Pant Nagar, Civil Lines, Gonda ii. Balrampur iii. Poly opp. VikasBhawan, Pant Nagar, Civil Lines, Gonda iv. 57, Laxmanpuri, Indira Nagar, Lucknow Ignoring the submission of assessee and details

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

house property situated at 57, Laxmanpuri, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. However, Ld. AO rejected the claim of assessee on following ground being details filed in ITR in AL schedule:- i. opp. VikasBhawan, Pant Nagar, Civil Lines, Gonda ii. Balrampur iii. Poly opp. VikasBhawan, Pant Nagar, Civil Lines, Gonda iv. 57, Laxmanpuri, Indira Nagar, Lucknow Ignoring the submission of assessee and details

SANTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, NFAC

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Santosh Kumar Shukla V. The Assessment Unit 11A/141, Vrindavan Colony Nfac Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bawps5372J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalabh Singh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.03.2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was An Employee Of Planning Research & Action Division Of State Planning Institute, Since 1993. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148A(B) Of The Act, Vide Dated 16.03.2022 For The Reason That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits/Time Deposits In His Bank Account. In Response To Notice Under Section Under Section 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.04.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of

reopening beyond three years, the income escaping assessment must be ₹50 lakh or more. The court indicated that the entire sale consideration of an asset should not be automatically considered as escaped income without accounting for the cost of acquisition. 2. Nitin Nema Vs Pr.CCIT (2023) 155 taxmann.com 276 (MP HC): This ruling similarly highlighted that for the extended period

SHRI NARESH KUMAR YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(5), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Naresh Kumar Yadav V. Ito-1(5) Vill. & Post Madiyaon Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aebpy8040D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Prashant Kumar Verma, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 07 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Lucknow, Dated 11.10.2019, For Assessment Year 2011- 12, Raising The Following Original Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because, The Whole Assessment Order Impugned In The Present Appeal Stands Wholly Vitiated As There Can Be No Reason To Believe That Income Has Escaped Assessment U/S 147/144 On The Ground Of Mere Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Amounting To Rs.12,98,000/- Therefore, The Entire Assessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Held As Nullity & Without Jurisdiction. 2. Because, The Assessment Order Impugned In The Present Appeal Stands Wholly Vitiated As There Can Be No Reason To Believe On The Basis Of Air Information That Income Has Escaped Assessment U/S 147/144 On The Ground Of Mere Cash Deposits In Bank Account Amounting Rs.12,98,000/-. Therefore, The Entire Assessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Held As Nullity & Without Jurisdiction.

property, whereas in the present case, the issue relates to cash deposits in the Savings Bank account of the assessee. Likewise, as per the ld. Counsel for the assessee, in the case of ‘Smt. Billo vs. ITO’ (surpa), the reason for reopening recorded by the Assessing Officer is different, inasmuch as in the present case, the bank details, such

NISHA FAZAL,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO-4(3), KANPUR-01

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property situated at House No.\n170, Block – E, 2nd Scheme, Sujatganj, Kanpur Nagar, Sale amount\nof Rs.35,00,000/- instead of Rs.83,93,860/- (Market Value), dated\n30.01.2012, due to which that the Id. ITO-1(5), Kanpur has recorded\nthe reasons and issued notice u/s 148 after obtained approval of Id.\nPr. CIT-1, Kanpur. Copy of sale deed

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

assessment year 2007-08 and (ii) its\nfailure to file Form No.10 before the completion before the completion of\nassessment and also to specify purpose of accumulation in the said form in the\n assessment year 2008-09. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) has not overlooked the provisions of\nsection 11(2), while directing the ld. AO to compute

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

assessing officer in examining this issue in the course of original assessment or even when the matter was sent back for computing the income in the manner provided under section 11. We notice that even while the Assessing Officer was primarily focused on trying to demonstrate that the activities of the assessee parishad were not charitable, he still found time

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

reopened u/s 147 of the Act and the Assessing Officer during reassessment proceedings had allowed exemption to the assessee u/s 11 of the Act. The findings recorded in the assessment order are reproduced below: “As per records assessee UTTAR PRADESH AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD (PAN: AAAJU0103A) was denied the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by invoking

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

reopened u/s 147 of the Act and the Assessing Officer during reassessment proceedings had allowed exemption to the assessee u/s 11 of the Act. The findings recorded in the assessment order are reproduced below: “As per records assessee UTTAR PRADESH AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD (PAN: AAAJU0103A) was denied the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by invoking

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

reopened u/s 147 of the Act and the Assessing Officer during reassessment proceedings had allowed exemption to the assessee u/s 11 of the Act. The findings recorded in the assessment order are reproduced below: “As per records assessee UTTAR PRADESH AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD (PAN: AAAJU0103A) was denied the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by invoking

LUCKNOW EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Shri Brahma Prakash Singh, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 94, Vaishali Enclave, Sector-9, Indira Income Tax-2, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow Pan: Ajmps4451L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dharmendra Kumar, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit-2, Lucknow Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act On 14.03.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That Revision Proceeding Initiated U/S 263 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Learned Pr. Cit-2. Lucknow Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 2. That Since Assessment Order Passed By The Ao Was Not Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue, Hence Revision Order Passed By Ld. Pr. Cit-2, Lucknow Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 3. That Ld.Ao Had Examined The Issue & After Being Satisfied By The Documentary Evidences & Explanations Furnished By Appellant, Passed Assessment Order, Hence Revision Order, Cancelling The Assessment Order Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 4. That Where An Order Passed By Ao Is Subject To An Appeal That Had Been Filed, Then Commissioner Cannot Invoke Power Under Section 263 In Such Matters, Which Are Agitated In Such Appeal. Since Issue Under Appeal Before Commissioner (Appeals) & Revision Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Same, Hence, Revision Order Passed By Commissioner Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 5. That The Appellant Seeks Permission To Modify And/Or Add Any Other Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal As The Circumstances Of The Case Might Require Or Justify.”

reopened to 5 Shri. Brahma Prakash Singh A.Y. 2012-13 examine the sources of investments in purchase of immovable properties which have been purchased in cash between F.Y. 2011-12 to F.Y. 2012-13. Further, there had been deposits in cash of Rs. 3,35,000/- in the two bank accounts of the assessee. The ld. AO after conducting extensive

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

reopening is dismissed as not pressed. Ground No. 3 to 8 in I.T.A. No.656 and Ground No. 4 to 9 in I.T.A. No.665 and Ground No. 3 to 8 in I.T.A. No.666 are similar in all the three appeals and are against rejection of claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Similarly ground No. 9 in I.T.A. No.656, Ground

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

reopening is dismissed as not pressed. Ground No. 3 to 8 in I.T.A. No.656 and Ground No. 4 to 9 in I.T.A. No.665 and Ground No. 3 to 8 in I.T.A. No.666 are similar in all the three appeals and are against rejection of claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Similarly ground No. 9 in I.T.A. No.656, Ground

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

reopening is dismissed as not pressed. Ground No. 3 to 8 in I.T.A. No.656 and Ground No. 4 to 9 in I.T.A. No.665 and Ground No. 3 to 8 in I.T.A. No.666 are similar in all the three appeals and are against rejection of claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Similarly ground No. 9 in I.T.A. No.656, Ground

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

assessment year 2008-09. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) has not overlooked the provisions of\nsection 11(2), while directing the ld. AO to compute the income in the manner\nprovided under section 11. Accordingly, additional ground number 2 does not seem\nto fit with the facts of the case and therefore it is also dismissed. This brings

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

assessments for A.Y.s 2003-04 to 2006-07 when the proviso to Section 2(15) was not in operation. The question of law before the Hon'ble High Court was following: - "Whether keeping the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had committed substantially illegal by holding that the income of the assessee is exempted under Section