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

property allotted to the employees of the \ndevelopment authority. Since, it was his view that the employees of the development authority \nwere persons covered under section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, he concluded that the \nactivities of the assessee could not be said to be charitable in nature, because of such \nconcessions allowed to the employees. Accordingly

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

property allotted to the employees of the \ndevelopment authority. Since, it was his view that the employees of the development authority \nwere persons covered under section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, he concluded that the \nactivities of the assessee could not be said to be charitable in nature, because of such \nconcessions allowed to the employees. Accordingly

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

property allotted to the employees of the \ndevelopment authority. Since, it was his view that the employees of the development authority \nwere persons covered under section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, he concluded that the \nactivities of the assessee could not be said to be charitable in nature, because of such \nconcessions allowed to the employees. Accordingly

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

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

house property\nsituated at 57, Laxmanpuri, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. However, Ld. AO\nrejected the claim of assessee on following ground being details filed in ITR\nin AL schedule:-\ni. opp. VikasBhawan, Pant Nagar, Civil Lines, Gonda\nii. Balrampur\niii. Poly opp. VikasBhawan, Pant Nagar, Civil Lines, Gonda\niv. 57, Laxmanpuri, Indira Nagar, Lucknow\n37\nIgnoring the submission of assessee

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

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, in as much as the original assessment order dated 11-02-2016 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. That the Ld. PCIT was wrong in not passing an speaking order ignoring the submissions made by the assessee during proceeding u/s 263 rendering the order under appeal