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

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

property\nheld in trust that was set apart as per section 11(1)(a), it was argued that the\nsame was not included in the total income of the assessee as per the scheme of\nassessment of charitable trusts. The disallowance had only been made because the\nregistration of the assessee had been cancelled but once the registration had been

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

section 11(2), while directing the ld. AO to compute the income in the manner provided under section 11. Accordingly, additional ground number 2 does not seem to fit with the facts of the case and therefore it is also dismissed. This brings us to additional ground number 3 ie that the Ld CIT(A) has not considered whether

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

property, interest on differed or delayed payments, thus what was\nemerging was that the activity of the assessee was purely that of a commercial\norganization. Therefore, the ld. AO held that the surplus of the assessee was not\nincidental to its activities but was the desired outcome of its activities. He further\ncommented that the exemption enjoyed under 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

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 us to\nadditional ground number 3 ie that the Ld CIT(A) has not considered whether the\nmoney

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

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 us to\nadditional ground number 3 ie that the Ld CIT(A) has not considered whether the\nmoney

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

section 11, declined to allow the assessee the benefit of\naccumulation under section 11(2) in either assessment year because of (i) its failure\nto specify the purpose for accumulation in 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

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

DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. M/S WELLDONE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh.Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S Welldone Infrastructure Range-3, Lucknow Private Limited, Lucknow Pan:Aaacw6354Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Amit Singh Chauhan, Addl (Cit) & Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) On 19.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,26,72,571/- Without Appreciate The Fact That The Assessee Is Involved In The Business Of Developing Properties & Selling It & Is Earning Rental Income Which Is Incidental To The "Revenue From Business Operations" Of The Assessee. 2. Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Law & On Facts Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee, While Filing Original Return Of Income Had Itself Considered That Rental Are In The Nature Of Revenue From Business Operations.

Section 23(5) of the I.T. Act provides no difference in Residential and commercial properties and incomes from both type of properties are taxed as Income from House property. (Pl refer page 4 of the CIT-A Order) (Pl refer page 4 of the CIT-A Order) 8 A.Y. 2017-17 M/s Welldone Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. D Before

DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MORADABAD

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(FORMERLY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),AYODHYA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

5. The ld. AO further observed that the activities of the assessee were in the nature of real estate business and the provisions of the first proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were applicable to its case. He, therefore, asked the assessee as to why the claim of exemption under section 11 of the Income

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

5 kms from the project. She \nsubmitted that the costing and pricing of the property sold bey the authority was under Govt \nControl. She further invited our attention to Govt Order number 4912/9-aa-1-99/32 Hudco/97 TC \ndated 4/11/1999, to point out that not every property was auctioned. In case of residential units, \nfirst they were to be disposed of by lottery

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (FORMELY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),LUCKNOW vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result all six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

5% area of saleable area is allocated for commercial properties. \nBesides these, provisions are made for economically weaker section of society for \ncommercial area as certain percentage has to be made available for local shops and \nshops for barber, vegetable vendor etc. which are disposed-off through lottery \nsystem. It is this leftover part from 5% of saleable area that

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

5 kms from the project. She \nsubmitted that the costing and pricing of the property sold bey the authority was under Govt \nControl. She further invited our attention to Govt Order number 4912/9-aa-1-99/32 Hudco/97 TC \ndated 4/11/1999, to point out that not every property was auctioned. In case of residential units, \nfirst they were to be disposed of by lottery

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is held to be partly allowed

11 showed that\nUPSIDC was already incorporated on 29th March, 1961. Thus, it held that UPSIDC\ncould not have been constituted under UPID Act, 1962. Ongoing through the UPID\nAct, 1962, it observed that what was contemplated in that Act was a corporation\nnamed as the, “U.P. Industrial Development Corporation” while the assessee in\nquestion was incorporated

PANKAJ AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. JT.CIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Pankaj Agarwal, 7/151, Ratan Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Majestic, Opp. Sony World, Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur-208002 Kanpur-208001 Pan:Abjfs4912R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma Sr Dr & Sh Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21.08.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit (A) Has The Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Loss In Trading In Derivatives Business Treating The Same As Capital Loss, As Against Assessee'S Claim Of Business Loss, To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, Which Order Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Disallowance Made By The Ao & Upheld Be Deleted. 2. Because On A Proper Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Also On The Interpretation Of The Provisions Of Sec 43(5), It Would Be Found The Loss Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Trading In Derivative Is Neither A Speculative Loss Nor A Capital Loss, The Same Should Ought To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, The Cit (A) Has Erred, In Treating The Same As Short Term Capital Loss.

property and thereby a capital asset. There was transfer of capital asset when the transaction was squared by an opposite corresponding transaction and similarly when squaring up was on expiry of the contract, it should be treated as extinguishment of rights in capital asset as per section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. She pointed out that

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

5 of 26 even the fructification of reassessment a vitiated exercise in law. The case laws being relied upon. are inter alia as held in a number of case laws including that of Ram Narayan Sah V Uol 340 CTR 505 Guj; Hexaware Technologies ltd V ACIT 338 CTR 536/464 ITR 430 Bom; Capital LG v ACIT 341CTR