LUCKNOW EVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. I.T.O., LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

ia) and 43B of Income-tax Act. A.Y. 2014-15 In additions to reasons for disallowance of claimed exemption u/s 11, 12, 13 read with section 2(15) mentioned in assessment order of AY 2013- 14, the provisions of section 13(3) of Income-tax Act were said to be applicable. A.Y. 2015-16 In addition to reasons mentioned

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

ia) and 43B of Income-tax Act. A.Y. 2014-15 In additions to reasons for disallowance of claimed exemption u/s 11, 12, 13 read with section 2(15) mentioned in assessment order of AY 2013- 14, the provisions of section 13(3) of Income-tax Act were said to be applicable. A.Y. 2015-16 In addition to reasons mentioned

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

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

ia) and 43B of Income-tax Act. A.Y. 2014-15 In additions to reasons for disallowance of claimed exemption u/s 11, 12, 13 read with section 2(15) mentioned in assessment order of AY 2013- 14, the provisions of section 13(3) of Income-tax Act were said to be applicable. A.Y. 2015-16 In addition to reasons mentioned

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

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

ia) and 43B of Income-tax Act. A.Y. 2014-15 In additions to reasons for disallowance of claimed exemption u/s 11, 12, 13 read with section 2(15) mentioned in assessment order of AY 2013- 14, the provisions of section 13(3) of Income-tax Act were said to be applicable. A.Y. 2015-16 In addition to reasons mentioned

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

ia) of Rs.45,71,338/-. 15. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing order which is contrary to the facts and law. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that all the grounds of appeal, except ground No. 3 in I.T.A. No.665 are similar to grounds already argued

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

ia) of Rs.45,71,338/-. 15. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing order which is contrary to the facts and law. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that all the grounds of appeal, except ground No. 3 in I.T.A. No.665 are similar to grounds already argued

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

ia) of Rs.45,71,338/-. 15. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing order which is contrary to the facts and law. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that all the grounds of appeal, except ground No. 3 in I.T.A. No.665 are similar to grounds already argued

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, LUCKNOW vs. MS. ZUBEIDA SHAHANSHAH, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2014-15

13 Lajpat Rai Marg, Lucknow which currently houses the residence of the first party. A copy of the map of the said property is annexed as Schedule-A with this Memorandum of Understanding and the portion bounded in red is the property in question.” On comparison of the contents of these two agreements, we find that originally the assessee

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

Housing Projects Ltd. ITA No.179/2011 HC of\nDelhi - Dt. of order 1.3.2012 343 ITR 329(Delhi)\nIn the present case, the findings recorded not gone into and has not given\nany by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has reason for observing that\nthe order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous. The finding\nrecorded

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

1,59,98,27,836/- which works out at Rs. 11,19,87,949/-. Since the appellant has shown income from business at Rs. 10,07,00,526/-, thus, the difference in profit works out at Rs. 1,12,87,423/-. Thus, the addition to the tune of Rs. 1,27,86,690/- (Rs. 1

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

1,59,98,27,836/- which works out at Rs. 11,19,87,949/-. Since the appellant has shown income from business at Rs. 10,07,00,526/-, thus, the difference in profit works out at Rs. 1,12,87,423/-. Thus, the addition to the tune of Rs. 1,27,86,690/- (Rs. 1

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

1,59,98,27,836/- which works out at Rs. 11,19,87,949/-. Since the appellant has shown income from business at Rs. 10,07,00,526/-, thus, the difference in profit works out at Rs. 1,12,87,423/-. Thus, the addition to the tune of Rs. 1,27,86,690/- (Rs. 1

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

1. That the Ld. A.O. wrongly objected the direction of the Ld. CIT Appeal for deleting the addition Rs. 4,95,42,049/- on account of interest of un-utilised funds on the face of finding by the Ld. CIT Appeal that the interest accrued on the advances received by the assesse from the govt. for construction activities

SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

13. Because without prejudice, if the disallowance/enhancement is to be sustained, then the same would go into increase the value of the closing to and in like fashion, the value of opening stock for the year should ought to have been adjusted. Such exercise having not been done, the addition made is contrary to the provisions

ALLIANCE NIRMAAN LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Projects Ltd., I.T.A.\nNo.179/2011-HC of Delhi -date of order 01/03/2012 343 ITR\n329 (Del)\n7.\nCIT vs. Vikas Polymers [2010] 194 Taxman 57 (Delhi High\nCourt)\n8.\nHaryana Coach Body Builders [2006] 10 SOT 736 (Delhi)\n9.\nCIT vs. Mohd. Ishaq Mohd. Gulam 276 ITR 13 (MP)\n10.\nCIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 152 Taxman