M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, ITA No. 374/LKW/2017 is partly allowed while ITA No

section 142(2A) vide his order dated 27.12.2007. The assessee challenged the said order vide a Writ Petition Bearing No. 176/2008 and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court stayed the operation and effect of the said order dated order dated 27.12.2017 till final decision was taken in the matter. Thus, the assessment proceedings came to be stayed. Subsequently, a search

M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, ITA No. 374/LKW/2017 is partly allowed while ITA No

section 142(2A) vide his order dated 27.12.2007. The assessee challenged the said order vide a Writ Petition Bearing No. 176/2008 and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court stayed the operation and effect of the said order dated order dated 27.12.2017 till final decision was taken in the matter. Thus, the assessment proceedings came to be stayed. Subsequently, a search

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)

142(2A) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Likewise as per the same reply it has been informed that no adverse finding as regards the WIP transfer by M/s. Sahara Prime City Ltd to the assessee firm has been given in its assessment order dated 27.03.2014 for the A.Y. 2011-12 passed by Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle

SHILPA KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Shilpa Khandelwal V. The Dy. Cit-2 330, Kalibari Bareilly Bareilly (U.P) Tan/Pan:Arypk5700A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 04 2025 O R D E R

price and other factors may be enough to show circumstances that might create suspicion; however the Court has to decide an issue on the basis of evidence and proof, and not on suspicion alone. The theory of human behavior and preponderance of probabilities cannot be cited as a basis to turn a blind eye to the evidence produced

ALLIANCE NIRMAAN LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

price or all\nsignificant risks and rewards of ownership have been transferred to the buyer and the seller\nretains no effective control of the goods transferred to a degree usually associated with\nownership; and\n(ii) no significant uncertainty exists regarding the amount of the consideration that will be\nderived from the sale of goods. Further In a transaction involving

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)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

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)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

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)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

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)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant, but also incorrect. It is interesting to note that

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

price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant, but also incorrect. It is interesting to note that

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

price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant, but also incorrect. It is interesting to note that

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

price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant, but also incorrect. It is interesting to note that

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

price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant, but also incorrect. It is interesting to note that

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

price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant, but also incorrect. It is interesting to note that

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant, but also incorrect. It is interesting to note that

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

price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant, but also incorrect. It is interesting to note that

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

price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant, but also incorrect. It is interesting to note that

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant, but also incorrect. It is interesting to note that