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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there is no parameter that

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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there is no parameter that

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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there is no parameter that

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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there is no parameter that

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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there is no parameter that

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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there is no parameter that

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

2. That the Ld. A.O. is wrong in contending and taking shelter under ITAT Order in Appeal No. ITA 821 and 544 / LKW -2012 and ITA 108/LKW -2013 for Assessment Year 2009-10 so as to justify addition of Rs. 77,80,570/- and Rs 4,20,15,078/- to the total income of the Assessee whereas

SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

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

house of the petitioner. However, since there was some confusion as to whom the seized assets had to be released and also whether the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the notice under section 132A of the Act had been granted or not. a review petition was dismissed in Commissioner of Police v. Sadruddin H. Javeri [2QOQ

SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

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

house of the petitioner. However, since there was some confusion as to whom the seized assets had to be released and also whether the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the notice under section 132A of the Act had been granted or not. a review petition was dismissed in Commissioner of Police v. Sadruddin H. Javeri [2QOQ

SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

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

house of the petitioner. However, since there was some confusion as to whom the seized assets had to be released and also whether the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the notice under section 132A of the Act had been granted or not. a review petition was dismissed in Commissioner of Police v. Sadruddin H. Javeri [2QOQ

SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

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

house of the petitioner. However, since there was some confusion as to whom the seized assets had to be released and also whether the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the notice under section 132A of the Act had been granted or not. a review petition was dismissed in Commissioner of Police v. Sadruddin H. Javeri [2QOQ

SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

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

house of the petitioner. However, since there was some confusion as to whom the seized assets had to be released and also whether the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the notice under section 132A of the Act had been granted or not. a review petition was dismissed in Commissioner of Police v. Sadruddin H. Javeri [2QOQ

SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

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

house of the petitioner. However, since there was some confusion as to whom the seized assets had to be released and also whether the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the notice under section 132A of the Act had been granted or not. a review petition was dismissed in Commissioner of Police v. Sadruddin H. Javeri [2QOQ

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

2 – AY 2014-15 Ld. CIT(A)-3 sustained the addition Rs. 1201000/- (Rs. 4346000-3135000) That assessee has acquired lease hold plot measuring at 781.40 sqm. situated at Khata no. 192/2,Gata no. 447/2, (Part) Civil line, Gonda purchased by assessee for consideration was Rs. 31,45,000/- from Smt. Pushplata Saran, Shri. Saurabh Saran, Shri. Shobhit Saran

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

2 – AY 2014-15 Ld. CIT(A)-3 sustained the addition Rs. 1201000/- (Rs. 4346000-3135000) That assessee has acquired lease hold plot measuring at 781.40 sqm. situated at Khata no. 192/2,Gata no. 447/2, (Part) Civil line, Gonda purchased by assessee for consideration was Rs. 31,45,000/- from Smt. Pushplata Saran, Shri. Saurabh Saran, Shri. Shobhit Saran

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

2 – AY 2014-15 Ld. CIT(A)-3 sustained the addition Rs. 1201000/- (Rs. 4346000-3135000) That assessee has acquired lease hold plot measuring at 781.40 sqm. situated at Khata no. 192/2,Gata no. 447/2, (Part) Civil line, Gonda purchased by assessee for consideration was Rs. 31,45,000/- from Smt. Pushplata Saran, Shri. Saurabh Saran, Shri. Shobhit Saran

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.”

House Ltd [ITA 94/2010] (Delhi High Court) d. Small Wonder industries v. CIT [ITA No.2464/Mum/2013] (ITAT- Mumbai) e. CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi [2008-296 ITR 292] (Rajasthan High Court) f. CIT v. Amit Corporation [Tax Appeal No.2583 of 2010] (Gujarat High Court) g. CIT v. Hotz Industries Ltd [2014-226 Taxman 252] (Delhi High Court) h. CIT v. Anand

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

2. Nature of business and modus operendi of the companies from whom assesses had received unsecured loans. DDIT (Inv). Unit-2, Kolkata submitted its report vide letter dated 17.04.2018 stating threin that summons u/s 131 were issued to the above mentioned company but summons were returned unserved by the Postal Department. Further Inspector was also deputed to make enquiry