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

Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Method of accounting - Estimation of income (GP rate) - Assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 - Assessee-company was carrying out contract of construction of roads awarded by Government - Due to various discrepancies in books of account, Assessing Officer rejected same and estimated profit at 10 per cent of gross receipts - Tribunal relying

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

housing accommodation of various sections of the people and especially for planning and development in the cities, towns and villages. Page 35 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) It was therefore that they pointed out that they acquired land at nominal rates, developed the same and sell it to general public. It was also their case that they

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

housing accommodation of various sections of the people and especially for planning and development in the cities, towns and villages. Page 35 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) It was therefore that they pointed out that they acquired land at nominal rates, developed the same and sell it to general public. It was also their case that they

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

housing accommodation of various sections of the people and especially for planning and development in the cities, towns and villages. Page 35 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) It was therefore that they pointed out that they acquired land at nominal rates, developed the same and sell it to general public. It was also their case that they

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

housing accommodation of various sections of the people and especially for planning and development in the cities, towns and villages. Page 35 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) It was therefore that they pointed out that they acquired land at nominal rates, developed the same and sell it to general public. It was also their case that they

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

housing accommodation of various sections of the people and especially for planning and development in the cities, towns and villages. Page 35 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) It was therefore that they pointed out that they acquired land at nominal rates, developed the same and sell it to general public. It was also their case that they

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

housing accommodation of various sections of the people and especially for planning and development in the cities, towns and villages. Page 35 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) It was therefore that they pointed out that they acquired land at nominal rates, developed the same and sell it to general public. It was also their case that they

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

housing accommodation of various sections of the people and especially for planning and development in the cities, towns and villages. Page 35 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) It was therefore that they pointed out that they acquired land at nominal rates, developed the same and sell it to general public. It was also their case that they

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

housing accommodation of various sections of the people and especially for planning and development in the cities, towns and villages. Page 35 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) It was therefore that they pointed out that they acquired land at nominal rates, developed the same and sell it to general public. It was also their case that they

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

section 29 and are deemed to have been taken\nconsideration while making such estimate.\"\n• Commissioner of Income-tax, Allahabad v. Target Construction Co.\nLtd.*[2015] 55 taxmann.com 294 (Allahabad)\nIT: Where in case of government contractor engaged in construction of roads\nbooks of account was rejected, Tribunal, relying upon profit rates of preceding\nthree years, was justified in estimating

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

191 taxman 238 (Karnataka). Furthermore, the ld. AO held, that it still stood that the Hon’ble Apex Court had rejected the SLP of M/s Jammu Development Authority and upheld the decision of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court by rejecting the SLP on Jammu Development Authority. Furthermore, he observed that in the case of Safdarjung Enclave Educational Society vs. Municipal

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

191 taxman 238 (Karnataka). Furthermore, the ld. AO held, that it still stood that the Hon’ble Apex Court had rejected the SLP of M/s Jammu Development Authority and upheld the decision of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court by rejecting the SLP on Jammu Development Authority. Furthermore, he observed that in the case of Safdarjung Enclave Educational Society vs. Municipal

DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MORADABAD

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

191 taxman 238 (Karnataka). Furthermore, the ld. AO held, that it still stood that the Hon’ble Apex Court had rejected the SLP of M/s Jammu Development Authority and upheld the decision of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court by rejecting the SLP on Jammu Development Authority. Furthermore, he observed that in the case of Safdarjung Enclave Educational Society vs. Municipal

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

191 taxman 238 (Karnataka). Furthermore, the ld. AO held, that it still stood that the Hon’ble Apex Court had rejected the SLP of M/s Jammu Development Authority and upheld the decision of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court by rejecting the SLP on Jammu Development Authority. Furthermore, he observed that in the case of Safdarjung Enclave Educational Society vs. Municipal

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

191 to pages 214 of his paper book which contained the letters of the\nvarious donors. He pointed out that in almost all the cases, the donors had\nindicated that they were making the contributions voluntarily and that the\ndonations were being made by them towards the corpus of the trust. In the\ncircumstances, since the conditions of section

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

191 to pages 214 of his paper book which contained the letters of the various donors. He pointed out that in almost all the cases, the donors had indicated that they were making the contributions voluntarily and that the donations were being made by them towards the corpus of the trust. In the circumstances, since the conditions of section

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is held to be partly allowed

191 & 192 of 2006. The\nHon'ble High Court required the counsel appearing on behalf of the UPSIDC to show\nhow and in what manner it was constituted and what its memorandum of\nassociation and articles of association were. It noticed that such material had\nneither been placed before the Tribunal nor before it. It noticed that in paragraph

JCIT(OSD), CC-1, LKO, LUCKNOW vs. ACP TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

property to the exclusion of all others. The Hon'ble\nApex Court in the above mentioned judgement has further held that the\nvery concept of depreciation suggests that the tax benefit on account of\ndepreciation legitimately belongs to one who has invested in the capital\nasset, is utilizing the capital asset and thereby loosing gradually\ninvestment caused by wear