ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 and application of section 115BBE, as above, the tax is once charged as per the normal provisions of the Act and again u/s 115BBE. Thus, the same income is taxed twice which is not permissible under law. 3.3.1 Even if hypothetically it is assumed that the donations to the corpus were received against payment of cash

M/S SHIVANSH INFRAESTATE PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Block-A, Surajdeep Income Tax, Range-6, 3Rd Floor, Complex, 1-Jopling Road, 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001 P.K. Complex, Lucknow Pan: Aaqcs5896P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 30.12.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1- The Ld. Cit (A) Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Ground That Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito-6(1) Lucknow On 01.04.2016 Without Appreciating That Jurisdiction Of Case Lies With Dcit, Range-6, Lucknow, Hence The Notice Issued By Ito-6(1) Is Without Jurisdiction & Invalid. Further, No Notice U/S 143(2) Has Been Issued By Jurisdictional Dcit, Range-Vi, Lucknow Within The Period As Per Section 143(2) Of L. T. Act. Hence The Present Assessment Is Invalid, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2- The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Upheld The Addition Without Appreciating That Ld. A. O. Rejected The Books Of Account & Instead Of Estimating The Net Profit, Additions Were Made On The Basis Of Same Books Of Account By Disallowing Expenses Under Different Heads Total Rs. 1,75,91,607/- & Addition U/S 68 R. W. S. 115Bbe Of I. T. Act For Rs. 1,32,78,833/- Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law.

192/ equivalent to $4256 on 23.11.2013. The Balance amount of Rs. 7,68,279/- was outstanding in the books of the Company and was payable to the said entity and therefore amount of Rs. 7,68,279/- was shown as outstanding amount payable as on 31.03.2014. Copy of Ledger Account of Sumansa Exhibition

PRIYA KANT SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Anadee Nath Misshraa.Y. 2017-18 Priya Kant Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer 1/428, Vishal Khand, Gomti (Exemption), Lucknow, The Nagar, Lucknow, U.P. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Pan:Aaatb4391F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.04.2025 O R D E R Per Sudhanshu Srivastava, J.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) On 24.04.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assesse Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ld. Cit (A)") Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Ex-Parte Without Appreciating The Legal Aspects Pertaining To The Case Of The Assessee & Also Without Looking Into The Merit Of The Additions Made By The Ld. A.O. 2. On The Undemoted Facts The Ld. Cit (A) Was Not Justified At All In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant. Because No Notice Of Hearing Was Served On The Appellant Either On Her Postal Address Or On The Ernail-Id Provided In The Appeal Memo.

68 of the Act by grossly ignoring the fact that the cash deposits made into the bank accounts were on account of sale proceeds received in cash which stood duly recorded in the books of the appellant and offered to tax. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.27

VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA,SIDDHARTH NAGAR vs. ACIT, GONDA

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Vijay Kumar Gupta V. The Acit Bewa Chauraha Gonda - New Dumariyaganj Siddharth Nagar Tan/Pan:Bmypg7642F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 05 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 05 2025 O R D E R

192/- made by the Id. AO: ITA No.609/LKW/2024 Page 5 of 10 (i) Addition of Rs.3,92,32,500/- made by the Assessing Officer by deeming the said sum as un-explained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee failed to give any explanation about the nature and the source of cash deposits made

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

68,08,35,131/- computed by the Assessing Officer under section 145(3) of the Act,\nwithout appreciating that the assessee failed to produce books of\naccounts, bills, and vouchers and that the trading results shown by the\nassessee were not found open to verification and were unreliable.\n\n18. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case

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

192-2 / Gata No. 447/2, Civil Lines, Gonda in \ncontravention of the facts that agreement for transfer of the \nproperty was undertaken during the F.Y. 2009-10 and \npayment was made through banking channel in FY 2009-10. The \naddition of Rs.1,54,35,000/- is liable to be deleted. \n\n8 \nI.T.A. No.349/Lkw/2025, A.Y. 2016-17 (Assessee’s Appeal

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

68,50,000/-, being the \ngrant received from Tourism Department, Government of India and the U.P. Government. It was \nsubmitted that the authority was bound to maintain a separate account of such receipts as per \nGovernment order and the assessee had in fact spent much more than the receipts on this \naccount. Thus, there was no question of making

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

68,50,000/-, being the \ngrant received from Tourism Department, Government of India and the U.P. Government. It was \n23\nsubmitted that the authority was bound to maintain a separate account of such receipts as per \nGovernment order and the assessee had in fact spent much more than the receipts on this \naccount. Thus, there was no question of making

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

68,50,000/-, being the \ngrant received from Tourism Department, Government of India and the U.P. Government. It was\n21\nsubmitted that the authority was bound to maintain a separate account of such receipts as per \nGovernment order and the assessee had in fact spent much more than the receipts on this \naccount. Thus, there was no question of making

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is held to be partly allowed

68 ITR 416 (Gujarat). Thereafter, it was argued that the\nassessee was not a credit institution as defined in section 2(5A) nor a finance\ncompany as defined in section 2(5B) of the Interest Tax Act and thus the Act did not\napply to the assessee. It also argued that since it was a State Government Company

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

68 ITR 416 (Gujarat). Thereafter, it was argued that the assessee was not a credit institution as defined in section 2(5A) nor a finance company as defined in section 2(5B) of the Interest Tax Act and thus the Act did not apply to the assessee. It also argued that since it was a State Government Company

ARUN KUMAR MAURYA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

192 Taxman 197/(2011) 336 ITR 678 (Allahabad), order of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of CIT vs Nagendra Prasad (2023) 156 taxmann.com 19 (Patna), order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shaily Juneja vs ACIT (2024) 167 taxmann.com 90/(2025) 476 ITR 665 I.T.A. No.415/LKW/2023 Assessment Year:2014-15 8 (Delhi), order

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

section 10(46) of the Act, introduced by the statute by the Finance Act 2011, the specified income arising to a body or trust or Board or Trust or Commission, which has been established or constituted by a Central or a State Act, for any activity for the benefit of general public and which is not engaged

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

section 10(46) of the Act, introduced by the statute by the Finance Act 2011, the specified income arising to a body or trust or Board or Trust or Commission, which has been established or constituted by a Central or a State Act, for any activity for the benefit of general public and which is not engaged

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

section 10(46) of the Act, introduced by the statute by the Finance Act 2011, the specified income arising to a body or trust or Board or Trust or Commission, which has been established or constituted by a Central or a State Act, for any activity for the benefit of general public and which is not engaged

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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there

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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there