M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(FORMERLY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),AYODHYA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

92,10,505/- being the balance in 'infrastructure development fund account'. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount in the above statutory fund are specifically received by virtue of Government Order dt. 15.01.1998 and are meant for utilization in the development activities exclusively. Ld CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the unutilized left over amount

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

section 11(2), while directing the ld. AO to compute the income in the manner provided under section 11. Accordingly, additional ground number 2 does not seem to fit with the facts of the case and therefore it is also dismissed. This brings us to additional ground number 3 ie that the Ld CIT(A) has not considered whether

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

section 11. Accordingly, additional ground number 2 does not seem\nto fit with the facts of the case and therefore it is also dismissed. This brings us to\nadditional ground number 3 ie that the Ld CIT(A) has not considered whether the\nmoney of the parishad was being invested in the specified modes or not. In this\ncontext

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

section 11. Accordingly, additional ground number 2 does not seem\nto fit with the facts of the case and therefore it is also dismissed. This brings us to\nadditional ground number 3 ie that the Ld CIT(A) has not considered whether the\nmoney of the parishad was being invested in the specified modes or not. In this\ncontext

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

section 11, declined to allow the assessee the benefit of\naccumulation under section 11(2) in either assessment year because of (i) its failure\nto specify the purpose for accumulation in assessment year 2007-08 and (ii) its\nfailure to file Form No.10 before the completion before the completion of\nassessment and also to specify purpose of accumulation

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

section 11, did not consider the findings of the AO with\nrespect to section 11(2), section 13(1)(d) and section 13(3). He has pointed out that\nonce the ld. CIT(A) had held that the income of the assessee should be computed in\nthe manner specified in section 11, taking into account information given in the\naudit

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

92,76,090 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 18-19 31/12/2019 3,72,59,560 31/01/2022 Partly allowed Shri Sachin Verma 12-13 30/12/2019 9,98,580 31/01/2022 Dismissed -Do- 14-15 29/12/2019 39,75,100 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 15-16 30/12/2019 80,49,830 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 16-17 30/12/2019 37,52,840 31/01/2022 Partly allowed

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

92,76,090 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 18-19 31/12/2019 3,72,59,560 31/01/2022 Partly allowed Shri Sachin Verma 12-13 30/12/2019 9,98,580 31/01/2022 Dismissed -Do- 14-15 29/12/2019 39,75,100 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 15-16 30/12/2019 80,49,830 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 16-17 30/12/2019 37,52,840 31/01/2022 Partly allowed

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

92,76,090 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 18-19 31/12/2019 3,72,59,560 31/01/2022 Partly allowed Shri Sachin Verma 12-13 30/12/2019 9,98,580 31/01/2022 Dismissed -Do- 14-15 29/12/2019 39,75,100 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 15-16 30/12/2019 80,49,830 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 16-17 30/12/2019 37,52,840 31/01/2022 Partly allowed

VIKAS JAIN,KANPUR vs. ACIT-CC 2(1)(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Vikas Jain, Vs. The Acit, H-2/1, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur- Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur 208001 208006 Pan: Abqpj8049R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 17.05.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 27.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because There Being No Reason To Believe, Far From There Being Any Material To Form Reasons To Believe, The Proceedings Initiated Right From Issue Of Notice U/S. 148 & The Re-Assessment Framed Thereof Are All Without Jurisdiction Bad In Law, The Order Passed Be Quashed. 02. Because The So-Called Reasons Having Been Recorded Applying Explanation 2(A) To Section 147, Of The Act Which Not Being Applicable, The Very Reason To Believe Being Contrary To The Mandate Of The Section, The Proceedings- Initiated U/S 148, The Reassessment Framed Are All Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, Be Quashed. 03. Because The Approval Given By The Competent Authority U/S 151, Being Mechanical In Nature Without Verification Of Facts, The Notice Issued U/S 148 & The Reassessment Framed Thereafter Be Quashed.

transfer of an asset. Accordingly, applying the provisions of section 50C, he held reasons to believe that assessee’s income chargeable to tax of Rs. 1,10,72,650/- had escaped assessment during the assessment year 2015-16 by virtue of the proviso of Explanation 2(a) of section 147. 3. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, 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

section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which is mentioned as under: "Meaning of service by post": Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression serve or either of the expressions give or send or any other expression is used, then

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

section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which is mentioned as under: "Meaning of service by post": Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression serve or either of the expressions give or send or any other expression is used, then