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

75,20,846/-. 11. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 17,04,91,220/- for deposit work. 12. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Liability for Construction Supply and Services

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

75,20,846/-. 11. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 17,04,91,220/- for deposit work. 12. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Liability for Construction Supply and Services

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

75,20,846/-. 11. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 17,04,91,220/- for deposit work. 12. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Liability for Construction Supply and Services

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

75,20,846/-. 11. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 17,04,91,220/- for deposit work. 12. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Liability for Construction Supply and Services

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

75,20,846/-. 11. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 17,04,91,220/- for deposit work. 12. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Liability for Construction Supply and Services

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

75,939/- under Section 68 read with 115BBE of the Act on account of bogus LTCG on sale of penny stocks of a company named M/s Gold Line International Finvest Limited. The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed and additions were confirmed with the observation that the Respondent had introduced unaccounted money into the books without paying taxes. Further

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

transferred to Abhipra Capital Ltd,. The sale consideration was received by demand draft. Therefore, the transaction in question cannot be said to be fake and is a genuine transaction. The Tribunal has not committee any error in upholding the order of CIT(Appeals) on this point, "The appeal fails and is dismissed. Order Date :- 12.12.2012" Hon'ble Supreme Court

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

75,346/- for the assessment year 2008-09, by denying the exemption under section 11. Aggrieved by these orders giving appeal effect to the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee again went before the ld. CIT(A) and challenged the appeal effect. It was submitted that the assessee had been denied the exemption under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

75,346/- for the assessment year 2008-09, by denying the exemption under section 11. Aggrieved by these orders giving appeal effect to the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee again went before the ld. CIT(A) and challenged the appeal effect. It was submitted that the assessee had been denied the exemption under section

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

Accordingly all four additional grounds filed by the revenue in Appeal numbers 532 & 533 of 2014, stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

75,346/- for the assessment year 2008-09, by denying the exemption under section 11. Aggrieved by these orders giving appeal effect to the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee again went before the ld. CIT(A) and challenged the appeal effect. It was submitted that the assessee had been denied the exemption under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

75,346/- for the assessment year 2008-09, by denying the exemption under section 11. Aggrieved by these orders giving appeal effect to the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee again went before the ld. CIT(A) and challenged the appeal effect. It was submitted that the assessee had been denied the exemption under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

75,346/- for the assessment year 2008-09, by denying the exemption under section 11. Aggrieved by these orders giving appeal effect to the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee again went before the ld. CIT(A) and challenged the appeal effect. It was submitted that the assessee had been denied the exemption under section

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

75,346/- for the assessment year 2008-09, by denying the exemption under section 11. Aggrieved by these orders giving appeal effect to the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee again went before the ld. CIT(A) and challenged the appeal effect. It was submitted that the assessee had been denied the exemption under section

ISHWAR DWELLINGS PVT. LTD,KANPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2015-16

price paid is not decisive to say whether the land is agricultural or not. I.T.A. No.44/Lkw/2021 Assessment Year:2015-16 14 6.7 We may refer to a judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CWT vs. E. Udayakumar (2006) 284 ITR 511 (Mad) where the Hon'ble Madras High Court has referred to the decision

ACIT CIRCLE 3, LUCKNOW vs. RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 112 To 114/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2015-16 To 2017-18 Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Vs. Dcit Bank Ltd P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. 226001. Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan:Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) A.Y.2016-17 Acit Circle-3 Vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh Ltd Kar Bhawan, Lucknow Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan: Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Addl. Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Four Appeals Have Been Have Been Filed For The Assessment Years 2015 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18 By The Assessee & Revenue Ssessee & Revenue Against The Respective Orders Of The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024. While The Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, The Revenue 18, The Revenue

transferred to the Provident Fund Commissioner on 29.11.2016 after registering the EPF with the Provident Fund Commissioner on 05.08.2015. Accordingly, it was prayed that deduction may kindly be allowed. With regard to the denial of deduction on account of leave encashment actually paid, it was submitted that the action of the Ld. CIT(A) was incorrect because the authorities below

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

transferred to the Provident Fund Commissioner on 29.11.2016 after registering the EPF with the Provident Fund Commissioner on 05.08.2015. Accordingly, it was prayed that deduction may kindly be allowed. With regard to the denial of deduction on account of leave encashment actually paid, it was submitted that the action of the Ld. CIT(A) was incorrect because the authorities below

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

transfer of land, in relation to establishment of industrial estates, or development of industrial areas and setting up of industries, it cannot be said to be relating to land or buildings for the reason that State is carrying out the object of Act with the Corporation as an agent in setting up industries in the State. Act aims at buildings

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

transfer of land, in relation to establishment of industrial estates, or development of industrial areas and setting up of industries, it cannot be said to be relating to land or buildings for the reason that State is carrying out the object of Act with the Corporation as an agent in setting up industries in the State. Act aims at buildings