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

house property situated at 57, Laxmanpuri, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. However, Ld. AO rejected the claim of assessee on following ground being details filed in ITR in AL schedule:- i. opp. VikasBhawan, Pant Nagar, Civil Lines, Gonda ii. Balrampur iii. Poly opp. VikasBhawan, Pant Nagar, Civil Lines, Gonda iv. 57, Laxmanpuri, Indira Nagar, Lucknow Ignoring the submission of assessee and details

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

43B of the IT Act, 1961. No documentary evidence has\nbeen obtained to verify whether the assessee AOP has paid it before filing\nof ITR. Besides the assessee as also debited Rs.1,40,46,274/- on account\nof VAT in the P & L A/c but no documentary evidences is available on file.\nix. The case was picked up for complete

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

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

43B\ndisallowances of Rs.\n2,57,43,209/-, Ld.\nCIT(A) allowed the\nappeal against original\norder.\n23 \n2019-20\n68,80,79,147\n4,52,65,423\n6.58\n11%\n7%\n2020-21\n1,59,98,27,836\n10,07,00,526\n6.29\n11%\n7%\nAddition on extra profit\ndeleted.\n2021

LUCKNOW EVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. I.T.O., LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

43B of Income-tax Act. A.Y. 2014-15 In additions to reasons for disallowance of claimed exemption u/s 11, 12, 13 read with section 2(15) mentioned in assessment order of AY 2013- 14, the provisions of section 13(3) of Income-tax Act were said to be applicable. A.Y. 2015-16 In addition to reasons mentioned in assessment orders

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

43B of Income-tax Act. A.Y. 2014-15 In additions to reasons for disallowance of claimed exemption u/s 11, 12, 13 read with section 2(15) mentioned in assessment order of AY 2013- 14, the provisions of section 13(3) of Income-tax Act were said to be applicable. A.Y. 2015-16 In addition to reasons mentioned in assessment orders

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

43B of Income-tax Act. A.Y. 2014-15 In additions to reasons for disallowance of claimed exemption u/s 11, 12, 13 read with section 2(15) mentioned in assessment order of AY 2013- 14, the provisions of section 13(3) of Income-tax Act were said to be applicable. A.Y. 2015-16 In addition to reasons mentioned in assessment orders

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

43B of Income-tax Act. A.Y. 2014-15 In additions to reasons for disallowance of claimed exemption u/s 11, 12, 13 read with section 2(15) mentioned in assessment order of AY 2013- 14, the provisions of section 13(3) of Income-tax Act were said to be applicable. A.Y. 2015-16 In addition to reasons mentioned in assessment orders

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

43B of Income-tax Act. A.Y. 2014-15 In additions to reasons for disallowance of claimed exemption u/s 11, 12, 13 read with section 2(15) mentioned in assessment order of AY 2013- 14, the provisions of section 13(3) of Income-tax Act were said to be applicable. A.Y. 2015-16 In addition to reasons mentioned in assessment orders

ALLIANCE NIRMAAN LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 36(1)(vii); payment towards\ncontribution to gratuity fund and deduction claimed u/s 43B, amount paid to RBI towards\npenalty for violation of KYC norms and deduction claimed towards provision for wage arrears.\nAccording to PCIT, AO had not conducted required enquiries to be conducted under respective\nprovisions of the Act, which rendered the assessment order erroneous, insofar