DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MORADABAD

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. 10. In his order for the A.Y. 2015-16, the ld. AO referred to the case of the ld. CIT(Exemption), Lucknow vs. Moradabad Development Authority in ITA No. 3/2017 in which the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court had dismissed the appeal of the department for the assessment year

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. 10. In his order for the A.Y. 2015-16, the ld. AO referred to the case of the ld. CIT(Exemption), Lucknow vs. Moradabad Development Authority in ITA No. 3/2017 in which the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court had dismissed the appeal of the department for the assessment year

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. 10. In his order for the A.Y. 2015-16, the ld. AO referred to the case of the ld. CIT(Exemption), Lucknow vs. Moradabad Development Authority in ITA No. 3/2017 in which the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court had dismissed the appeal of the department for the assessment year

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. 10. In his order for the A.Y. 2015-16, the ld. AO referred to the case of the ld. CIT(Exemption), Lucknow vs. Moradabad Development Authority in ITA No. 3/2017 in which the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court had dismissed the appeal of the department for the assessment year

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

u/s 11 on the ground that the appellant is hit by the provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by not treating the appellant as Charitable Institution, even though the same has already been adjudged

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

In the result all six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

46,17,446/-. The disallowance of exemption U/s 11 \nas well as holding the income as taxable business income is again in utter disregard to \nauthoritative judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Lucknow \nDevelopment Authority [(2013) 38 taxmann.com 246 (All. HC)], Moradabad Development \nAuthority [ITA No. 3 of 2017 dt. 03.05.2017] [Lucknow bench, Alld

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

46,17,446/-. The disallowance of exemption U/s 11\nas well as holding the income as taxable business income is again in utter disregard to \nauthoritative judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Lucknow\n7\nDevelopment Authority [(2013) 38 taxmann.com 246 (All. HC)], Moradabad Development \nAuthority [ITA No. 3 of 2017 dt. 03.05.2017] [Lucknow bench, Alld

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

46,17,446/-. The disallowance of exemption U/s 11 \nas well as holding the income as taxable business income is again in utter disregard to \nauthoritative judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Lucknow \n7\nDevelopment Authority [(2013) 38 taxmann.com 246 (All. HC)], Moradabad Development \nAuthority [ITA No. 3 of 2017 dt. 03.05.2017] [Lucknow bench, Alld

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, 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

10 are reproduced below: 9. Now coming to assessment year 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016- 17, we find that out of these three years, two years i.e. 2013-14 and 2014-15 were reopened u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of survey carried out on assessee. In these two years, there is no issue of commission

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

10 are reproduced below: 9. Now coming to assessment year 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016- 17, we find that out of these three years, two years i.e. 2013-14 and 2014-15 were reopened u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of survey carried out on assessee. In these two years, there is no issue of commission

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

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. 1,12,87,423 + Rs. 14,99,267/-) deserved to be confirmed. Therefore, the addition to the extent of Rs. 1,27,86,690/- is confirmed and remaining addition

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

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. 1,12,87,423 + Rs. 14,99,267/-) deserved to be confirmed. Therefore, the addition to the extent of Rs. 1,27,86,690/- is confirmed and remaining addition

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

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. 1,12,87,423 + Rs. 14,99,267/-) deserved to be confirmed. Therefore, the addition to the extent of Rs. 1,27,86,690/- is confirmed and remaining addition

RACHNA VARYANI,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Rachna Varyani V. The Income Tax Officer 117, R.N. Block Ward 2(3) Ratan Lal Nagar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaxpv4296Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 04 2025 O R D E R

46,047/-. 2.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The appeal was migrated to the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee confirming the order of the AO. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging

SHKIRA KHATOON W/O LATE RAFEEQ AHMAD ANSARI,SITAPUR vs. DCIT, SITAPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.4 In other assessment years too, i.e., assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, similar addition has been made by the AO, treating the receipts from shipping bill for export as unexplained credit and added to the income of the assessee under section

SHAKIRA KHATOON( WIFE&L/H)LATE RAFEEQ AHMAD ANSARI,SITAPUR vs. DCIT, SITAPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.4 In other assessment years too, i.e., assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, similar addition has been made by the AO, treating the receipts from shipping bill for export as unexplained credit and added to the income of the assessee under section

SHAKIRA KHATOON (WIFE&LH)LATE RAFEEQ AHMAD ANSARI,SITAPUR vs. DY.CIT, SITAPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.4 In other assessment years too, i.e., assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, similar addition has been made by the AO, treating the receipts from shipping bill for export as unexplained credit and added to the income of the assessee under 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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 3.0 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), challenging the addition of Rs.16,75,288/- made by the AO on account of Long Term Capital Gain. However, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) by confirming the addition of Rs.16