ALLIANCE NIRMAAN LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

properties and flats. The assessee electronically filed his return of income\nfor the year under consideration on 30/03/2018 declaring total income of\nRs.36,84,720/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act whereby the\nassessee's total income was determined at Rs.36,84,720/-. The case of the\nassessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS and accordingly, notice

DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. M/S WELLDONE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh.Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S Welldone Infrastructure Range-3, Lucknow Private Limited, Lucknow Pan:Aaacw6354Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Amit Singh Chauhan, Addl (Cit) & Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) On 19.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,26,72,571/- Without Appreciate The Fact That The Assessee Is Involved In The Business Of Developing Properties & Selling It & Is Earning Rental Income Which Is Incidental To The "Revenue From Business Operations" Of The Assessee. 2. Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Law & On Facts Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee, While Filing Original Return Of Income Had Itself Considered That Rental Are In The Nature Of Revenue From Business Operations.

263 ITR 143, Atma Ram Properties P. Ltd. vs. JCIT (2006) 102 TTJ (Delhi)[SB], CIT vs. Gundecha Builders (2019) 102 taxman.com 27 (Bom) and ACIT vs. Ashapura Developers (ITAT Mumbai)wherein all the Courts and Tribunals had held that where the assessee was not having the dominant business of letting out of properties but was essentially acquiring, developing

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

property A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 held in trust that was set apart as per section 11(1)(a), it was argued that the same was not included in the total income of the assessee as per the scheme of assessment of charitable trusts. The disallowance had only been made because the registration of the assessee had been cancelled

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

M/S STANDARD FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT LTD,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 132(4) of the Act on 3rd August, 2015 and letter dated 31st July, 2015 issued by Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal. The case was centralised as per the orders passed under section 127 of the Act and a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 6th September, 2016, which was duly served. Upon receipt of notice

SACHIN VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 132(4) of the Act on 3rd August, 2015 and letter dated 31st July, 2015 issued by Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal. The case was centralised as per the orders passed under section 127 of the Act and a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 6th September, 2016, which was duly served. Upon receipt of notice

KAMAL KANT VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 132(4) of the Act on 3rd August, 2015 and letter dated 31st July, 2015 issued by Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal. The case was centralised as per the orders passed under section 127 of the Act and a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 6th September, 2016, which was duly served. Upon receipt of notice

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

property held in trust that was set apart as per section 11(1)(a), it was argued that the same was not included in the total income of the assessee as per the scheme of assessment of charitable trusts. The disallowance had only been made because the registration of the assessee had been cancelled but once the registration had been

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.”

263 and has accordingly come in appeal before us. Sh. Dharmendra Kumar, C.A. (hereinafter referred to as the ld. AR), represented the case before us. It was submitted that the assessee had filed a return on 31.03.2014 showing a total income of Rs. 10,65,760/-. On 22.03.2016, the case of the assessee had been reopened to 5 Shri. Brahma

PRECIOUS BJUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, , BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.66/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Precious Buildtech Pvt Ltd V. Pcit Harmony Apartment, Adiacent Income Tax Department, To Bedi International School, Bareilly-243001. Dental College Road, Pilibhit Bypass Road, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aagcp1255R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Mazhar Akram, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 09 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

263(1) of the Act. He submitted that in view of the unequivocal clarification embodied into the Explanation-2, there is no error in the order passed by the Ld. PCIT and same deserves to be upheld. He prayed, accordingly. Page 7 of 16 7. In his rejoinder, Ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate, submitted that

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

263 (ITAT Delhi)]. 5. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 14,01,930/- being the balance in 'infrastructure development fund account'. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount in the above statutory fund are specifically received by virtue of Government Order dt. 15.01.1998 and are meant

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

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

263 (ITAT Delhi)]. 5. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 14,01,930/- being the balance in 'infrastructure development fund account'. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount in the above statutory fund are specifically received by virtue of Government Order dt. 15.01.1998 and are meant

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

263 (ITAT Delhi)]. \n5. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs \n14,01,930/- being the balance in 'infrastructure development fund account'. Ld. CIT(A) \nfailed to appreciate that the amount in the above statutory fund are specifically received by \nvirtue of Government Order dt. 15.01.1998 and are meant

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

263 (ITAT Delhi)].\n5. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs \n14,01,930/- being the balance in 'infrastructure development fund account'. Ld. CIT(A) \nfailed to appreciate that the amount in the above statutory fund are specifically received by \nvirtue of Government Order dt. 15.01.1998 and are meant

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, 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

1. Identity, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of these compares in aspect of said unsecured loans. 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