SHIMLA PROPERTIES,LUCKNOW vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 Shimla Properties V. The Pcit 30C, Datiya House Lucknow Khursheed Bagh Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ablfs9732M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16 08 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 09 2022 O R D E R

4. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, with reference to the Additional Ground nos. 10 & 11, has submitted that the impugned order passed by the ld. PCIT, Lucknow-1 is barred by the limitation provided under sub section (2) of section 263 of the Act; that the ld. PCIT has set aside the assessment order dated

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

19-20 & 22-23\nRakesh Kumar Pandey,\nS/o Shri Surya Narayan Pandey,\nVill-Devarda, Block-Belsar,\nGonda-271401\nPAN:ATIPP6520B\n(Appellant)\nVs.\nA.C.I.T.,\nCentral Circle-2,\nLucknow.\n(Respondent)\n\nI.T.A. Nos.398 & 399/Lkw/2025\n Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17\n\nI.T.A. Nos.402& 405/Lkw/2025\n Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2022-23\nDy.C.I.T.,\nCentral Circle-2,\nLucknow.\n(Appellant

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

19. That the first appellate body -CIT A Faceless erred on facts even when it was apparent that the said transaction of the deposit and defraying from the Appellants bank account was for the purposes of purchasing a house property by Smt Geeta Awasthi from the seller Smt Seema Vij in Lucknow ITA No.400/LKW/2025 Page 14 of 26 where Bank

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

19-20 & 22-23\nRakesh Kumar Pandey,\nS/o Shri Surya Narayan Pandey,\nVill-Devarda, Block-Belsar,\nGonda-271401\nPAN:ATIPP6520B\n(Appellant)\nVs. A.C.I.T.,\nCentral Circle-2,\nLucknow.\n(Respondent)\n\nI.T.A. Nos.398 & 399/Lkw/2025\n Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17\n\nI.T.A. Nos.402& 405/Lkw/2025\n Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2022-23\nDy.C.I.T.,\nCentral Circle-2,\nLucknow.\n(Appellant

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

properties, movable and immovable; and (e) All moneys received by the Authority by way of rents and profits or in any other manner or ITA. Nos.232 to 235/LKW/2023 Page 19 of 22 From any other source. (f) The fund shall be applied towards meeting the expenses incurred by the Authority in the Administration of this Act and for no other

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

properties, movable and immovable; and (e) All moneys received by the Authority by way of rents and profits or in any other manner or ITA. Nos.232 to 235/LKW/2023 Page 19 of 22 From any other source. (f) The fund shall be applied towards meeting the expenses incurred by the Authority in the Administration of this Act and for no other

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-APPEAL, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

properties, movable and immovable; and (e) All moneys received by the Authority by way of rents and profits or in any other manner or ITA. Nos.232 to 235/LKW/2023 Page 19 of 22 From any other source. (f) The fund shall be applied towards meeting the expenses incurred by the Authority in the Administration of this Act and for no other

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

properties, movable and immovable; and (e) All moneys received by the Authority by way of rents and profits or in any other manner or ITA. Nos.232 to 235/LKW/2023 Page 19 of 22 From any other source. (f) The fund shall be applied towards meeting the expenses incurred by the Authority in the Administration of this Act and for no other

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

4 of the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973 and as per section 58, the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973, the State Government was empowered to dissolve the development authority. Furthermore, State Government had the power to call for records of the authority under section 41, approve the budget under section 20, make the Rules under section 55 etc. Thus, from the above, it was clear that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR., KANPUR vs. M/S. SUSHRUT INSTITUTE OF PLASTIC SURGERY PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic Central Circle 2 Surgery Private Limited Kanpur 29, Shahmeena Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.15/Lkw/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No.30/Lkw/2023] Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic V. The Acit Surgery Private Limited Central Circle 2 29, Shahmeena Road Kanpur Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Cross - Objector) (Respondent)

4) The conclusion of the AO that the entire amount reflected in the impounded material was unaccounted is baseless and was based on serious error of presumption. 7.3 During the course of arguments before us, the Department could not point out any perversity in the aforesaid observations of the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The Ld. A.R. has reproduced a chart

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

4 of the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973 and as per section 58, the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973, the State Government was empowered to dissolve the development authority. Furthermore, State Government had the power to call for records of the authority under section 41, approve the budget under section 20, make the Rules under section 55 etc. Thus, from the above, it was clear that

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Housing Society Limited (supra). 64. CIT (E) then tried to involve itself with Section 10(20A) and Section 10(20) of Act, 1961 observing that Section 10(20A) has been deleted/omitted with effect from 01.04.2003 and Section 10(20) applies to "local authorities" only and ''IDAs' are not "local authorities" as stated in explanation to Section

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Housing Society Limited (supra). 64. CIT (E) then tried to involve itself with Section 10(20A) and Section 10(20) of Act, 1961 observing that Section 10(20A) has been deleted/omitted with effect from 01.04.2003 and Section 10(20) applies to "local authorities" only and ''IDAs' are not "local authorities" as stated in explanation to Section

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Housing Society Limited (supra). 64. CIT (E) then tried to involve itself with Section 10(20A) and Section 10(20) of Act, 1961 observing that Section 10(20A) has been deleted/omitted with effect from 01.04.2003 and Section 10(20) applies to "local authorities" only and ''IDAs' are not "local authorities" as stated in explanation to Section

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

19. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT v. Maruti Center for Excellence, [2012] 208 Taxman 236 (Delhi) has also held that the benefits of Section 11 of the Act cease even when the benefits are allowed directly or indirectly to the persons referred to in Section 13(1) read with Section

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

19. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT v. Maruti Center for Excellence, [2012] 208 Taxman 236 (Delhi) has also held that the benefits of Section 11 of the Act cease even when the benefits are allowed directly or indirectly to the persons referred to in Section 13(1) read with Section

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

19. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT v. Maruti Center for Excellence, [2012] 208 Taxman 236 (Delhi) has also held that the benefits of Section 11 of the Act cease even when the benefits are allowed directly or indirectly to the persons referred to in Section 13(1) read with Section

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

19. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT v. Maruti Center for Excellence, [2012] 208 Taxman 236 (Delhi) has also held that the benefits of Section 11 of the Act cease even when the benefits are allowed directly or indirectly to the persons referred to in Section 13(1) read with Section