DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA

11% on\ntotal turnover after rejecting the book result shown, in section 145(3) of the Act,\nwithout appreciating that the trading results shown by the assessee were\nfound open to verification and were unreliable.\n2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition of Rs.7

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

disallowed the accumulation of Rs. 22,00,00,000/- under section 11(2) of the Act and furthermore added back

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed the accumulation of Rs. 22,00,00,000/- under section 11(2) of the Act and furthermore added back

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowing the assessee the benefit of section 11. However, the ld. AO concluded from the claim of deduction under section 80IB, that the assessee was engaged in business activity and therefore, on these grounds, he held that the exemption under section 11 was not allowable. He also held that the claim of section 80IB was also not allowable firstly because

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowing the assessee the benefit of section 11. However, the ld. AO concluded from the claim of deduction under section 80IB, that the assessee was engaged in business activity and therefore, on these grounds, he held that the exemption under section 11 was not allowable. He also held that the claim of section 80IB was also not allowable firstly because

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowing the assessee the benefit of section 11. However, the ld. AO concluded from the claim of deduction under section 80IB, that the assessee was engaged in business activity and therefore, on these grounds, he held that the exemption under section 11 was not allowable. He also held that the claim of section 80IB was also not allowable firstly because

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowing the assessee the benefit of section 11. However, the ld. AO concluded from the claim of deduction under section 80IB, that the assessee was engaged in business activity and therefore, on these grounds, he held that the exemption under section 11 was not allowable. He also held that the claim of section 80IB was also not allowable firstly because

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowing the assessee the benefit of section 11. However, the ld. AO concluded from the claim of deduction under section 80IB, that the assessee was engaged in business activity and therefore, on these grounds, he held that the exemption under section 11 was not allowable. He also held that the claim of section 80IB was also not allowable firstly because

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

disallowing the assessee the benefit of section 11. However, the ld. AO concluded from the claim of deduction under section 80IB, that the assessee was engaged in business activity and therefore, on these grounds, he held that the exemption under section 11 was not allowable. He also held that the claim of section 80IB was also not allowable firstly because