ASTT. COMMISSIONER 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

b) Rs.180.66crores; Interest on fixed deposits-Rs.105.82crores; c) Receipts from EMOs related properties- d) Rs.14.30crores; Interestonsavingsbankaccount-Rs.10.29crores; e) Centage charges on deposit works-Rs.8.34 crores f) Similarly major expenses relate to cost of property stock sold- ii. Rs.260.08crores. The expenses on staff, including salary and wages come to iii. approximately Rs. 81 crores. Expenses

ASTT. COMMISSIONER 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

b) Rs.180.66crores; Interest on fixed deposits-Rs.105.82crores; c) Receipts from EMOs related properties- d) Rs.14.30crores; Interestonsavingsbankaccount-Rs.10.29crores; e) Centage charges on deposit works-Rs.8.34 crores f) Similarly major expenses relate to cost of property stock sold- ii. Rs.260.08crores. The expenses on staff, including salary and wages come to iii. approximately Rs. 81 crores. Expenses

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

b) Rs.180.66crores; Interest on fixed deposits-Rs.105.82crores; c) Receipts from EMOs related properties- d) Rs.14.30crores; Interestonsavingsbankaccount-Rs.10.29crores; e) Centage charges on deposit works-Rs.8.34 crores f) Similarly major expenses relate to cost of property stock sold- ii. Rs.260.08crores. The expenses on staff, including salary and wages come to iii. approximately Rs. 81 crores. Expenses

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

b) Rs.180.66crores; Interest on fixed deposits-Rs.105.82crores; c) Receipts from EMOs related properties- d) Rs.14.30crores; Interestonsavingsbankaccount-Rs.10.29crores; e) Centage charges on deposit works-Rs.8.34 crores f) Similarly major expenses relate to cost of property stock sold- ii. Rs.260.08crores. The expenses on staff, including salary and wages come to iii. approximately Rs. 81 crores. Expenses

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

b) Rs.180.66crores; Interest on fixed deposits-Rs.105.82crores; c) Receipts from EMOs related properties- d) Rs.14.30crores; Interestonsavingsbankaccount-Rs.10.29crores; e) Centage charges on deposit works-Rs.8.34 crores f) Similarly major expenses relate to cost of property stock sold- ii. Rs.260.08crores. The expenses on staff, including salary and wages come to iii. approximately Rs. 81 crores. Expenses

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

b) Rs.180.66crores; Interest on fixed deposits-Rs.105.82crores; c) Receipts from EMOs related properties- d) Rs.14.30crores; Interestonsavingsbankaccount-Rs.10.29crores; e) Centage charges on deposit works-Rs.8.34 crores f) Similarly major expenses relate to cost of property stock sold- ii. Rs.260.08crores. The expenses on staff, including salary and wages come to iii. approximately Rs. 81 crores. Expenses

ASTT. COMMISSIONER 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

b) Rs.180.66crores; Interest on fixed deposits-Rs.105.82crores; c) Receipts from EMOs related properties- d) Rs.14.30crores; Interestonsavingsbankaccount-Rs.10.29crores; e) Centage charges on deposit works-Rs.8.34 crores f) Similarly major expenses relate to cost of property stock sold- ii. Rs.260.08crores. The expenses on staff, including salary and wages come to iii. approximately Rs. 81 crores. Expenses

ASTT. COMMISSIONER 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

b) Rs.180.66crores; Interest on fixed deposits-Rs.105.82crores; c) Receipts from EMOs related properties- d) Rs.14.30crores; Interestonsavingsbankaccount-Rs.10.29crores; e) Centage charges on deposit works-Rs.8.34 crores f) Similarly major expenses relate to cost of property stock sold- ii. Rs.260.08crores. The expenses on staff, including salary and wages come to iii. approximately Rs. 81 crores. Expenses

M/S K G CONSTRUCTION,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-CC-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

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

B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2021-22 M/s K.G. Construction, vs. DCIT, 122/8 Goel House, Faizabad Road, Central Circle-1, Lucknow Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226016 PAN: AAKFK4805B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue by: Sh. Vachaspati, CIT DR Date of hearing: 06.01.2026 Date of pronouncement

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

property was converted into freehold through registered deed on 24/10/2017. During the assessment proceeding of AY 2014-15, AO has referred the valuation of said property u/s 50C/142A in response to which Valuation Officer, Allahabad has estimated the FMV of lease property as on 04/10/2013 at Rs. 43,46,000/- against actual consideration of Rs. 31,45,000/- vide valuation

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

property was converted into freehold through registered deed on 24/10/2017. During the assessment proceeding of AY 2014-15, AO has referred the valuation of said property u/s 50C/142A in response to which Valuation Officer, Allahabad has estimated the FMV of lease property as on 04/10/2013 at Rs. 43,46,000/- against actual consideration of Rs. 31,45,000/- vide valuation

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

property was converted into freehold through registered deed on 24/10/2017. During the assessment proceeding of AY 2014-15, AO has referred the valuation of said property u/s 50C/142A in response to which Valuation Officer, Allahabad has estimated the FMV of lease property as on 04/10/2013 at Rs. 43,46,000/- against actual consideration of Rs. 31,45,000/- vide valuation

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

4 months from December 2017 till April 2018 if a lender M/s. Silver Agencies Pvt. Ltd. who complied with the notice issued u/s 133(6) for AY 2015-16 before the same AO, changed its address then AO before reaching a different conclusion that the same lender is bogus and non- existent, should have given an opportunity to the appellant

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

4 months from December 2017 till April 2018 if a lender M/s. Silver Agencies Pvt. Ltd. who complied with the notice issued u/s 133(6) for AY 2015-16 before the same AO, changed its address then AO before reaching a different conclusion that the same lender is bogus and non- existent, should have given an opportunity to the appellant

ACIT(E), LUCKNOW vs. M/S. BHAGWANT INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, BIJNOR

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

120/-. Aggrieved by this, the\nassessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after\nconsidering the submissions deleted the additions and allowed\nthe appeal of the assessee. Now, the Revenue is in appeal before\nthis Tribunal.\n3.\nApropos to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Departmental\nRepresentative (DR) reiterated the submissions as made in the\nwritten submissions