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 boards, urban development authorities, various boards (like tea board, coffee board, rubber board etc.), enjoyed blanket exemption from tax under Section 10 of the Act and their incomes did not form part of the taxable income. These provisions were contained in clauses (20), (20A),(22A), (23) etc. Of Section 10 of the Act. 8. However, these provisions were omitted

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 boards, urban development authorities, various boards (like tea board, coffee board, rubber board etc.), enjoyed blanket exemption from tax under Section 10 of the Act and their incomes did not form part of the taxable income. These provisions were contained in clauses (20), (20A),(22A), (23) etc. Of Section 10 of the Act. 8. However, these provisions were omitted

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 boards, urban development authorities, various boards (like tea board, coffee board, rubber board etc.), enjoyed blanket exemption from tax under Section 10 of the Act and their incomes did not form part of the taxable income. These provisions were contained in clauses (20), (20A),(22A), (23) etc. Of Section 10 of the Act. 8. However, these provisions were omitted

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 boards, urban development authorities, various boards (like tea board, coffee board, rubber board etc.), enjoyed blanket exemption from tax under Section 10 of the Act and their incomes did not form part of the taxable income. These provisions were contained in clauses (20), (20A),(22A), (23) etc. Of Section 10 of the Act. 8. However, these provisions were omitted

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 boards, urban development authorities, various boards (like tea board, coffee board, rubber board etc.), enjoyed blanket exemption from tax under Section 10 of the Act and their incomes did not form part of the taxable income. These provisions were contained in clauses (20), (20A),(22A), (23) etc. Of Section 10 of the Act. 8. However, these provisions were omitted

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 boards, urban development authorities, various boards (like tea board, coffee board, rubber board etc.), enjoyed blanket exemption from tax under Section 10 of the Act and their incomes did not form part of the taxable income. These provisions were contained in clauses (20), (20A),(22A), (23) etc. Of Section 10 of the Act. 8. However, these provisions were omitted

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 boards, urban development authorities, various boards (like tea board, coffee board, rubber board etc.), enjoyed blanket exemption from tax under Section 10 of the Act and their incomes did not form part of the taxable income. These provisions were contained in clauses (20), (20A),(22A), (23) etc. Of Section 10 of the Act. 8. However, these provisions were omitted

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 boards, urban development authorities, various boards (like tea board, coffee board, rubber board etc.), enjoyed blanket exemption from tax under Section 10 of the Act and their incomes did not form part of the taxable income. These provisions were contained in clauses (20), (20A),(22A), (23) etc. Of Section 10 of the Act. 8. However, these provisions were omitted

SUSHIL TULI,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(5), SHAHJAHANPUR

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

Section 22 are must for treating Rental Income as Income from House property which it do not satisfy, 1) That the assessee must be the Owner of the Property (whereas the assessee was not the ITA No.553/LKW/2016 Page 2 of 6 Owner of property let out but was just a Tenant) 2) That the Property let out must

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

house property at Rs.26,49,780/-, income from short term capital gain at Rs.9,03,233/- and income from other sources at Rs.74,901/-. The Assessing Officer processed the return under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act on 07.05.2013, as is clear from the chronology of processing of return, downloaded from the e-filing Account of the Income

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

Properties vs. ACIT 340 CTR 690Bom; Kanakanala Ravinder Reddy v ITO 334 CTR 646 Telangna. Jasjit Singh and Others v Uol 340 CTR P&H Jatinder Singh Bhangu v Uol 339 CTR 473 P&H, Kulwant Singh v Uol 341 CTR 700 P&H. The income tax act being an All India statute the judgments and judicial pronouncements

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

8. BECAUSE the provisions as contained in section 12AA (3) do not have any retrospective application and Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in relying, inter alia, on the order dated 29.05.2012 as had been passed by Ld. C.I.T. (I), Lucknow (cancelling the registration under section 12AA

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

8. BECAUSE the provisions as contained in section 12AA (3) do not have any retrospective application and Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in relying, inter alia, on the order dated 29.05.2012 as had been passed by Ld. C.I.T. (I), Lucknow (cancelling the registration under section 12AA

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

8. BECAUSE the provisions as contained in section 12AA (3) do not have any retrospective application and Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in relying, inter alia, on the order dated 29.05.2012 as had been passed by Ld. C.I.T. (I), Lucknow (cancelling the registration under section 12AA

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.562/Lkw/2018 Assessment Year:2013-14 7 In view of these facts and circumstances and following the above decision, I hold that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on rent of Rs.3,00,000/- Therefore, ground No. 2 is allowed. 4.1 Now coming to the second grievance regarding confirmation of disallowance

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

8) inserted by the Financial Act of 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2009. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), erred in allowing exemption under section 11 of the Act, disregarding the provisions contained section 11(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not taking into account the provisions contained in section

SHRI KINGSHUK GHOSHAL,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-6(5), LUCKNOW

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Kinghshuk Ghoshal V. The Ito 6(5) E-402, Halwasiya Utsav Enclave Lucknow Opposite Hal, Faizabad Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Affpg3258L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 26.12.2017, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Lucknow-3 (Ld. Cit(A)) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.11.2012, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,05,233/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noticed That The Assessee Was Earning Interest Income From Saving Bank Deposits & Fdrs & That The Assessee Had Claimed Exemption Of Rs.71,54,619/- Under Section 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). During The

house) within the time limit allowed u/s 139(4) of the Act and consequently the claim of deduction did not get deleted merely on the ground that amount was not deposited in Capital Gains Account within the time limit u/s 139(1). 8. BECAUSE various case laws relied upon by the "appellant" was fully supported the case of the "appellant

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

8) inserted by the Financial Act of 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2009. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), erred in allowing exemption under section 11 of the Act, disregarding the provisions contained section 11(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not taking into account the provisions contained in section

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

Accordingly all four additional grounds filed by the revenue in Appeal numbers 532 & 533 of 2014, stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

8) inserted by the Financial Act of 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2009. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), erred in allowing exemption under section 11 of the Act, disregarding the provisions contained section 11(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not taking into account the provisions contained in section