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. 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

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

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. 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

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

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

47,049/- Total Rs. 14,98,11,948/- 6. While making these additions, the ld. Assessing Officer held that M/s UPSIDC Limited was a financial corporation fully owned by the U.P. State Government, which was engaged in the acquisition and development of land for the purposes of promoting industrialization in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Industrial plots of land were

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

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyinterest Tax Appeal Nos.3 & 4/Lkw/2004 A.Ys.1995-96 & 1996-97

47,049/- Total Rs.14,98,11,948/- 6. While making these additions, the ld. Assessing Officer held that M/s UPSIDC Limited was a financial corporation fully owned by the U.P. State Government, which was engaged in the acquisition and development of land for the purposes of promoting industrialization in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Industrial plots of land were given

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

47 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) accumulation made during FY 2008-09 amounting to Rs.5,53,18,733/- should have been treated as the income of the FY 2014-15, being spent on non-charitable purpose, invoking section 11(3)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in addition to the surplus income held of the current year

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

47 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) accumulation made during FY 2008-09 amounting to Rs.5,53,18,733/- should have been treated as the income of the FY 2014-15, being spent on non-charitable purpose, invoking section 11(3)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in addition to the surplus income held of the current year

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

47 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) accumulation made during FY 2008-09 amounting to Rs.5,53,18,733/- should have been treated as the income of the FY 2014-15, being spent on non-charitable purpose, invoking section 11(3)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in addition to the surplus income held of the current year

UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

47,000\n0\n347000\n5,85,54,013\n4,72,29,499 1,13,24,514\n6. 21. As noted earlier, the appellant had claimed the entire sum distributed to the\nimplementing agency as application of funds in its hands, whereas the actual\nexpenditure incurred by those implementing agencies was much less and hence\nthe difference. The AO therefore, held

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT\nAND\nSHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)

47,000\n0\n347000\n\n5,85,54,013\n4,72,29,499 1,13,24,514\n\n6. 21. As noted earlier, the appellant had claimed the entire sum distributed to the\nimplementing agency as application of funds in its hands, whereas the actual\nexpenditure incurred by those implementing agencies was much less and hence\nthe difference

ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), KANPUR, KANPUR vs. KHANNA SALES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Ito, Vs. Khanna Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(3)(1), Kanpur 54/34, Nayaganj, Kanpur Pan: Aabck4442N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Swarn Singh, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) For The A.Y. 2017- 18 On 29.12.2019. The Grounds Of The Appeal Are As Under: - “1- Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating The Pattern Of Cash Sales Discussed By The Assessing Officer In Detail In His Order Which Shows A Substantial Jump Of 38% Of Total Sales In The Month Of October, 2016 I.E. The Period Immediately Prior To Demonetization In November, 2016. Cash Sales Before & After This Period Is Negligible. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend Any One Or More Of The Grounds Of Appeal As Stated Above As & When Need For Doing So May Arise. 3. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition Of 3 Rs. 2,64.19.000/- On Account Of Cash Deposits U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 4. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating That U/S 68 The Ao Is Not Required To Reject The Books Of Accounts. The Only Requirement Is That, If The Explanation Offered By The Assessee Is Not, In The Opinion Of The Assessing Officer Satisfactory, The Sum (Cash Sales) So Credited Can Be Charged To Income-Tax As The Income Of The Assessee Of That Previous Year.”

section 68. The ld. AR pointed to page no. 275 to 276 of his paper book which contained details of reconciliation of stock for the F.Y. 2016-17 prepared as per perpetual inventory method to demonstrate that as on 1st November, 2016, the assessee had a stock of Rs. 2,00,30,281/-; that it had made purchases

KAMAL KANT VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

2,97,93,070 31/01/2022 Partly allowed 12-13 28/12/2019 47,43,180 31/01/2022 Standard Agro Vet Partly allowed Pvt. Ltd. -Do- 13-14 29/12/2019 1,22,06,030 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 14-15 29/12/2019 72,29,750 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 15-16 29/12/2019 96,13,740 31/12/2022 Partly allowed Kamal Kant Verma 15-16 30/12/2019 68

SACHIN VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

2,97,93,070 31/01/2022 Partly allowed 12-13 28/12/2019 47,43,180 31/01/2022 Standard Agro Vet Partly allowed Pvt. Ltd. -Do- 13-14 29/12/2019 1,22,06,030 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 14-15 29/12/2019 72,29,750 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 15-16 29/12/2019 96,13,740 31/12/2022 Partly allowed Kamal Kant Verma 15-16 30/12/2019 68

M/S STANDARD FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT LTD,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

2,97,93,070 31/01/2022 Partly allowed 12-13 28/12/2019 47,43,180 31/01/2022 Standard Agro Vet Partly allowed Pvt. Ltd. -Do- 13-14 29/12/2019 1,22,06,030 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 14-15 29/12/2019 72,29,750 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 15-16 29/12/2019 96,13,740 31/12/2022 Partly allowed Kamal Kant Verma 15-16 30/12/2019 68

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. MOHIT ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

2 Departmental appeals are having identical issues, they were heard together and, therefore, they are being disposed of through this common order for the sake of convenience. 2.0 The brief facts in the case of Shri Mohit Anand for A.Y. 2015-16 in IT(SS)A No.334/LKW/2025 are that in this case, the original return was filed declaring a total