TINICH SAHKARI GANNA SAMITI LIMITED,BASTI vs. ITO, , BASTI

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

80,618/- from M/s Govind Nagar Sugar, a Unit of Phenil Sugar Pvt. Ltd. and received interest on deposits of Rs.54,367/-. The AO noted that in the return filed by the assessee, it had shown sales/gross receipt at Rs.2,98,333/- and claimed expenses at Rs.35,08,236/- under the head ‘Other Expenses’. In response to the query raised

TINICH SAHKARI GANNA SAMITI LIMITED,BASTII vs. ITO, BASTI

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

80,618/- from M/s Govind Nagar Sugar, a Unit of Phenil Sugar Pvt. Ltd. and received interest on deposits of Rs.54,367/-. The AO noted that in the return filed by the assessee, it had shown sales/gross receipt at Rs.2,98,333/- and claimed expenses at Rs.35,08,236/- under the head ‘Other Expenses’. In response to the query raised

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

transferred to assessee given by M/s Shalibhadra Steel Pvt. Ltd. in response to notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act. (9) Dematerialisation request Form dated 27.05.2014 for dematerializing 3000 shares of M/s Kapрас Pharma Ltd. (10) Contract Note-cum-Bill dated 12.11.2014 for sale of 3000 shares of M/s Kapрас Pharma Ltd. ITA No.313/LKW/2023 Page

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

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

80,10,634/-. 3.) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of advances of contracts of Rs 16,37,86,375/-. 4.) Appellant craves leave to add or amend the ground of appeal, as stated above as and when need of doing so arises with the prior permission of the Hon'ble Bench

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

80,10,634/-. 3.) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of advances of contracts of Rs 16,37,86,375/-. 4.) Appellant craves leave to add or amend the ground of appeal, as stated above as and when need of doing so arises with the prior permission of the Hon'ble Bench

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

80,10,634/-. 3.) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of advances of contracts of Rs 16,37,86,375/-. 4.) Appellant craves leave to add or amend the ground of appeal, as stated above as and when need of doing so arises with the prior permission of the Hon'ble Bench

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

80,10,634/-. 3.) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of advances of contracts of Rs 16,37,86,375/-. 4.) Appellant craves leave to add or amend the ground of appeal, as stated above as and when need of doing so arises with the prior permission of the Hon'ble Bench

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

80,10,634/-. 3.) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of advances of contracts of Rs 16,37,86,375/-. 4.) Appellant craves leave to add or amend the ground of appeal, as stated above as and when need of doing so arises with the prior permission of the Hon'ble Bench

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

80,10,634/-. 3.) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of advances of contracts of Rs 16,37,86,375/-. 4.) Appellant craves leave to add or amend the ground of appeal, as stated above as and when need of doing so arises with the prior permission of the Hon'ble Bench

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

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

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 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

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

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 is no parameter that