M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(4), RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Bareilly V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2472C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Amritsar V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs4654E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Kanpur(I) V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2468Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Guwahati V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2462E (Appellant) (Respondent)

price thereof was to be determined mutually; that the valuation of the WIP was not mandatory; that in any case, no addition under section 69C of the Act was called for; that the consideration mentioned in the MoU tallies exactly with the assessee’s financials; that the Ledger Account of the WIP (APB:43), as on 31.3.2011, also duly reflects

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR vs. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

prices started appreciating in lots at various intervals as per the details submitted before AO and reproduced in the assessment order. AO found that there was an abnormal increase in the value of shares of the scrip that was actually innocuous. However, during the appellate proceedings it is seen that appellant submitted all the relevant facts and details

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), KANPUR vs. SHRI RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

prices started appreciating in lots at various intervals as per the details submitted before AO and reproduced in the assessment order. AO found that there was an abnormal increase in the value of shares of the scrip that was actually innocuous. However, during the appellate proceedings it is seen that appellant submitted all the relevant facts and details

LUCKNOW EVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. I.T.O., LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot v. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR 2164 (SC) = (1985) 60 STC 296 (SC); Government Medical Store Depot v. State of Haryana, (1986) 63 STC 198(SC))." The expression "business" has further been defined in theCommentary on Income Tax Law by Chaturvedi&Pithisaria(Pages 1322 and 1323; Vol1 ; Fifth edition

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot v. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR 2164 (SC) = (1985) 60 STC 296 (SC); Government Medical Store Depot v. State of Haryana, (1986) 63 STC 198(SC))." The expression "business" has further been defined in theCommentary on Income Tax Law by Chaturvedi&Pithisaria(Pages 1322 and 1323; Vol1 ; Fifth edition

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot v. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR 2164 (SC) = (1985) 60 STC 296 (SC); Government Medical Store Depot v. State of Haryana, (1986) 63 STC 198(SC))." The expression "business" has further been defined in theCommentary on Income Tax Law by Chaturvedi&Pithisaria(Pages 1322 and 1323; Vol1 ; Fifth edition

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot v. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR 2164 (SC) = (1985) 60 STC 296 (SC); Government Medical Store Depot v. State of Haryana, (1986) 63 STC 198(SC))." The expression "business" has further been defined in theCommentary on Income Tax Law by Chaturvedi&Pithisaria(Pages 1322 and 1323; Vol1 ; Fifth edition

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot v. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR 2164 (SC) = (1985) 60 STC 296 (SC); Government Medical Store Depot v. State of Haryana, (1986) 63 STC 198(SC))." The expression "business" has further been defined in theCommentary on Income Tax Law by Chaturvedi&Pithisaria(Pages 1322 and 1323; Vol1 ; Fifth edition

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot v. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR 2164 (SC) = (1985) 60 STC 296 (SC); Government Medical Store Depot v. State of Haryana, (1986) 63 STC 198(SC))." The expression "business" has further been defined in theCommentary on Income Tax Law by Chaturvedi&Pithisaria(Pages 1322 and 1323; Vol1 ; Fifth edition

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot v. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR 2164 (SC) = (1985) 60 STC 296 (SC); Government Medical Store Depot v. State of Haryana, (1986) 63 STC 198(SC))." The expression "business" has further been defined in theCommentary on Income Tax Law by Chaturvedi&Pithisaria(Pages 1322 and 1323; Vol1 ; Fifth edition

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot v. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR 2164 (SC) = (1985) 60 STC 296 (SC); Government Medical Store Depot v. State of Haryana, (1986) 63 STC 198(SC))." The expression "business" has further been defined in theCommentary on Income Tax Law by Chaturvedi&Pithisaria(Pages 1322 and 1323; Vol1 ; Fifth edition

SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

price only.. It was explained that there had been no change\nin the method of accounting regularly followed by the assessee year after\nyear and the stocks have been valued as it was valued in the earlier years.\nThe AO also noted that in purchases made from sister concern, no freight has\nbeen paid. It was explained during

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 in any commercial

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 in any commercial

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 in any commercial

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

section 132(4) of the Act on 3rd August, 2015 and letter dated 31st July, 2015 issued by Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal. The case was centralised as per the orders passed under section 127 of the Act and a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 6th September, 2016, which was duly served. Upon receipt of notice

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

section 132(4) of the Act on 3rd August, 2015 and letter dated 31st July, 2015 issued by Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal. The case was centralised as per the orders passed under section 127 of the Act and a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 6th September, 2016, which was duly served. Upon receipt of notice

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

section 132(4) of the Act on 3rd August, 2015 and letter dated 31st July, 2015 issued by Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal. The case was centralised as per the orders passed under section 127 of the Act and a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 6th September, 2016, which was duly served. Upon receipt of notice

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

133(6) during the assessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 on the old address of M/s. Silver Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and the said queries were satisfied by the loan creditor by filing its copy of ITR, Bank Statement and confirmation of the transactions before AO. Lastly, AO did not confront the findings of the inquiry report of the DDIT