SHRI JASMINDER SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-14

Housing Finance Ltd. has also been shown as liability in the balance sheet. It was further argued that before the learned CIT(A), various documents and evidences were filed wherein it was demonstrated that the said property was being used as a business asset and in this respect our attention was invited to page 4 onwards of learned

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

31,45,000/- from Smt. Pushplata Saran, Shri. Saurabh Saran, Shri. Shobhit Saran and Shri.Shresh Saran on 04/10/2013 against stamp duty value at Rs. 92,76,000/-. Thereafter, the said lease 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

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

31,45,000/- from Smt. Pushplata Saran, Shri. Saurabh Saran, Shri. Shobhit Saran and Shri.Shresh Saran on 04/10/2013 against stamp duty value at Rs. 92,76,000/-. Thereafter, the said lease 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

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

31,45,000/- from Smt. Pushplata Saran, Shri. Saurabh Saran, Shri. Shobhit Saran and Shri.Shresh Saran on 04/10/2013 against stamp duty value at Rs. 92,76,000/-. Thereafter, the said lease 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

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 or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and villages which before the amendment was not included in computing the total income, was omitted. Consequently, the benefit conferred by clause (20A) on such an Authority was taken away. Thus, in view of the fact that section 10(20A) was omitted and an Explanation

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 or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and villages which before the amendment was not included in computing the total income, was omitted. Consequently, the benefit conferred by clause (20A) on such an Authority was taken away. Thus, in view of the fact that section 10(20A) was omitted and an Explanation

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 or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and villages which before the amendment was not included in computing the total income, was omitted. Consequently, the benefit conferred by clause (20A) on such an Authority was taken away. Thus, in view of the fact that section 10(20A) was omitted and an Explanation

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 or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and villages which before the amendment was not included in computing the total income, was omitted. Consequently, the benefit conferred by clause (20A) on such an Authority was taken away. Thus, in view of the fact that section 10(20A) was omitted and an Explanation

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 or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and villages which before the amendment was not included in computing the total income, was omitted. Consequently, the benefit conferred by clause (20A) on such an Authority was taken away. Thus, in view of the fact that section 10(20A) was omitted and an Explanation

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 or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and villages which before the amendment was not included in computing the total income, was omitted. Consequently, the benefit conferred by clause (20A) on such an Authority was taken away. Thus, in view of the fact that section 10(20A) was omitted and an Explanation

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 or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and villages which before the amendment was not included in computing the total income, was omitted. Consequently, the benefit conferred by clause (20A) on such an Authority was taken away. Thus, in view of the fact that section 10(20A) was omitted and an Explanation

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 or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and villages which before the amendment was not included in computing the total income, was omitted. Consequently, the benefit conferred by clause (20A) on such an Authority was taken away. Thus, in view of the fact that section 10(20A) was omitted and an Explanation

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

31,370/- and it was assessed on this total income. 12. In his order for the assessment year 2015-16, the ld. AO also drew reference to a U.P. Government order dated 7.12.1999 in which there was reservation of 2% to the employees of the development authorities, in respect of the allotment of residential and commercial properties. He held that

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

31,370/- and it was assessed on this total income. 12. In his order for the assessment year 2015-16, the ld. AO also drew reference to a U.P. Government order dated 7.12.1999 in which there was reservation of 2% to the employees of the development authorities, in respect of the allotment of residential and commercial properties. He held 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)

31,43,48,500 4.1 The Ld. A.R. submitted that the AO had made the impugned addition purely on the basis of presumption and that he had failed to bring on record any corroborative evidence to establish that the rough working made by the assessee in the diaries marked as BK-8, BK-9, BK-10 and BK-11 were

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

house property and valuer’s report was so meager that one would assume it to be bona fide difference fit to be ignored. 3.7.5. Hence, as the difference in the revised estimate made by the Valuation Officer and that claimed by the assessee works out to less than 15% in respect of the three buildings, and valuation is only

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

house property and valuer’s report was so meager that one would assume it to be bona fide difference fit to be ignored. 3.7.5. Hence, as the difference in the revised estimate made by the Valuation Officer and that claimed by the assessee works out to less than 15% in respect of the three buildings, and valuation is only

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

house property and valuer’s report was so meager that one would assume it to be bona fide difference fit to be ignored. 3.7.5. Hence, as the difference in the revised estimate made by the Valuation Officer and that claimed by the assessee works out to less than 15% in respect of the three buildings, and valuation is only