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

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 in response to which Valuation Officer, Allahabad has estimated the FMV of lease property as on 04/10/2013 at Rs. 43,46,000/- against actual consideration

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

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 in response to which Valuation Officer, Allahabad has estimated the FMV of lease property as on 04/10/2013 at Rs. 43,46,000/- against actual consideration

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

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 in response to which Valuation Officer, Allahabad has estimated the FMV of lease property as on 04/10/2013 at Rs. 43,46,000/- against actual consideration

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

section 11.\nWe notice that even while the Assessing Officer was primarily focused on trying to\ndemonstrate that the activities of the assessee parishad were not charitable, he still\nfound time to go through the accounts to observe that the assessee had applied less\nthan 85% of its receipts during the year and was therefore required to file an\napplication

FIROJ AHMAD ,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-1(4), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Firoz Ahmad Income Tax Officer-1(4) V. B-1174, Indira Nagar, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226016. Lucknow-226001. Pan:Adypa2072K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 14 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 11 2024 O R D E R

92,00,000/-. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the Sale consideration of Property No 2 at Rs 79,73,000/- by application of Section 50C of the Act. Page 2 of 6 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income

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

92,10,505/- 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 for utilization in the development activities exclusively. Ld CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the unutilized left over amount

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

section 11. Accordingly, additional ground number 2 does not seem\nto fit with the facts of the case and therefore it is also dismissed. This brings us to\nadditional ground number 3 ie that the Ld CIT(A) has not considered whether the\nmoney of the parishad was being invested in the specified modes or not. In this\ncontext

SMT. SITA KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

92,910/-. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30/06/2017 at a total income of Rs.1,02,51,530/-. The assessee had sold out a residential house owned jointly with Smt. Savita Khandelwal for a sale consideration of Rs.2,06,96,000/- and the assessee’s share in the property was worked out at Rs.1

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.”

92,399/-. 3. The ld. PCIT(1), Lucknow called for and examined the assessment records and records in his order that the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The ld. PCIT noted that during the year under consideration, the assessee had invested

NISHA FAZAL,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO-4(3), KANPUR-01

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

House No.\n170, Block – E, 2nd Scheme, Sujatganj, Kanpur Nagar, Sale amount\nof Rs.35,00,000/- instead of Rs.83,93,860/- (Market Value), dated\n30.01.2012, due to which that the Id. ITO-1(5), Kanpur has recorded\nthe reasons and issued notice u/s 148 after obtained approval of Id.\nPr. CIT-1, Kanpur. Copy of sale deed are annexed herewith

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

section 11(2), while directing the ld. AO to compute the income in the manner provided under section 11. Accordingly, additional ground number 2 does not seem to fit with the facts of the case and therefore it is also dismissed. This brings us to additional ground number 3 ie that the Ld CIT(A) has not considered whether

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

section 11. Accordingly, additional ground number 2 does not seem\nto fit with the facts of the case and therefore it is also dismissed. This brings us to\nadditional ground number 3 ie that the Ld CIT(A) has not considered whether the\nmoney of the parishad was being invested in the specified modes or not. In this\ncontext

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

section 11, did not consider the findings of the AO with\nrespect to section 11(2), section 13(1)(d) and section 13(3). He has pointed out that\nonce the ld. CIT(A) had held that the income of the assessee should be computed in\nthe manner specified in section 11, taking into account information given in the\naudit

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

section 11, declined to allow the assessee the benefit of\naccumulation under section 11(2) in either assessment year because of (i) its failure\nto specify the purpose for accumulation in assessment year 2007-08 and (ii) its\nfailure to file Form No.10 before the completion before the completion of\nassessment and also to specify purpose of accumulation

KASHI NATH SETH SARRAF PRIVATE LIMITED,HARDOI vs. ACIT, SITAPUR, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

92,29,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of\nthe Act is unwarranted, given that the amount represents sales\nalready declared and taxed. Therefore, the addition made by the AO\nand confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) is deleted, and these grounds of appeal are\nallowed.\n\nSection cannot be changed by ITAT\n\n1.)\nSmt Sarika Jain

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

Housing Projects Ltd. ITA No.179/2011 HC of\nDelhi - Dt. of order 1.3.2012 343 ITR 329(Delhi)\nIn the present case, the findings recorded not gone into and has not given\nany by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has reason for observing that\nthe order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous. The finding\nrecorded

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

M/S. NARAIN PROPERTIES LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ACIT-VI, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Properties Ltd. 9. Synthetic Marble and Resin Ltd. 10. Vind nyawasani Glassware Ltd. It is appreciated that some of the best brains are behind creation of losses by internal sale and purchase of shares in one case or the other which is beyond reasoning from the view point of commercial expediency. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark decision

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