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)

154 is a mistake apparent from records not it is applicable on the old provisions or change of earlier opinion. 7. Any other ground of appeal which may be raised during the course of hearing of appeal.” 2. As the matter relates to common issues and since the assessment year 2014-15, is the first assessment year in question

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)

154 is a mistake apparent from records not it is applicable on the old provisions or change of earlier opinion. 7. Any other ground of appeal which may be raised during the course of hearing of appeal.” 2. As the matter relates to common issues and since the assessment year 2014-15, is the first assessment year in question

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)

154 is a mistake apparent from records not it is applicable on the old provisions or change of earlier opinion. 7. Any other ground of appeal which may be raised during the course of hearing of appeal.” 2. As the matter relates to common issues and since the assessment year 2014-15, is the first assessment year in question

A P S ACADEMY,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-IV(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoorassessment Year 2008-09 M/S A.P.S. Academy, The Income Tax Officer, 239, Leela Building, Vs. Ward –Iv(I), Senani Vihar, Lucknow Raibareilly Road, Lucknow Pan – Aaata 7665H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154(1A) are applicable only where the subject matter in the assessment order and the issue of rectification u/s. 154 are same and therefore it was prayed that the additional ground taken by the assessee may be dismissed. 6. We have heard rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that

AMAN INFRAPROPERTIES P. LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

TDS, vide order dated 23.09.2021 in assessee’s own case on an another issue. Against the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 3.1.2023, the assessee moved an application under section 154 of the Act, requesting him to rectify the mistake apparent in the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, which has been rejected

AMAN INFRAPROPERTIES P. LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

TDS, vide order dated 23.09.2021 in assessee’s own case on an another issue. Against the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 3.1.2023, the assessee moved an application under section 154 of the Act, requesting him to rectify the mistake apparent in the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, which has been rejected

LEKHESHWAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,AYODHYA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2016-17 Lekheshwar Educational Trust V. Income Tax Officer Lekheshwar Complex Exemption Ward Naka By Pass Lucknow Faizabad (Ayodhya) Pan:Aaatl9836B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 09 2024 O R D E R

TDS Penalty” of Rs.16,970/- and claimed it as Revenue Expenditure, which was also disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.24,06,840/- and issued computation sheet and demand notice at zero tax. 3. Thereafter, vide order dated 26.7.2019, the ITO (Exemption Ward) passed a rectification order under section

PRATHVI RAJ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2009-10 Prathvi Raj V. The Dcit P-248, 1St Floor, Nehru Enclave Lucknow Gomit Nagar, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Adbpp5752G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2024 O R D E R

section 154 of the Act, allowed the benefit of TDS of Rs.63,236/-. However, deduction of interest on housing loan of Rs.1,25,366/- was not given to the assessee, observing that “the assessee did not claim deduction with respect to interest paid on housing loan in the ITR of the year, therefore the same is not allowed”. 3. Aggrieved

U P SUGAR MILLS COGEN ASSOCIATION,LUCKNOW vs. AO EXEMPTION CIRCLE , LUCKNOW

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.145/Lkw/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Up Sugar Mills Cogen Association, 403, Chintels House,16-Station Road, Lucknow, Up-226001 Pan: Aaatu2238A . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

TDS to ₹11,60,810/-. 2.3. In response to intimation, the assessee approached Revenue u/s 154 of the Act on 23/03/2022 with a request to reprocess by correcting mistake in (a) denying exemption (b) disallowing expenditure against the income. The Revenue rejected the request in limine on 16/09/2022 stating that, ‘latest return for the same PAN & AY has been transferred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

TDS can not held to be non disclosure of the full particulars. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the notice under Section 147 of the Act to the petitioner stands vitiated in non compliance or fulfilment of the second condition as laid down in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act.” Shri Anil Kumar

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

TDS can not held to be non disclosure of the full particulars. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the notice under Section 147 of the Act to the petitioner stands vitiated in non compliance or fulfilment of the second condition as laid down in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act.” Shri Anil Kumar

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,, LUCKNOW

7.\nThe contention on behalf of the Revenue before us is that the\nAssessing Officer was right in holding that the deduction under\nSection 80-IA of the Act should be restricted to 'business income'\nonly. Mr. Arijit Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of\nthe Revenue, submitted that Section 80AB of the Act contemplates\ndeductions in respect

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide I

7.\nThe contention on behalf of the Revenue before us is that the\nAssessing Officer was right in holding that the deduction under\nSection 80-IA of the Act should be restricted to 'business income'\nonly. Mr. Arijit Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of\nthe Revenue, submitted that Section 80AB of the Act contemplates\ndeductions in respect

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. A CIT (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2012-13 National Highway Authority V. Addl. Cit (Tds) Of India 7/199, Radiance Town, 53, Basant Vihar, Naubasta, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur- Kanpur-208021. 208002. Pan:Aaatn1936H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 06 10 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 10 2025 O R D E R

TDS) and as upheld by the CIT(NFAC), overlooking and ignoring the petition for rectification u/s 154 of the act, being totally in disregard to the provision of the act, being violative to the principles of natural justice, totally unwarranted be quashed. 6. Because there being neither failure to the deduct whole or any part of the tax, the discrepancy

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

TDS and grant the benefit to the assessee as per law.\nOn the issue of charging of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C, holding that\nthe charging of interest was mandatory, he rejected the plea of the assessee but\ndirected the ld. AO to allow the consequential relief that would arise as a result of\nthe decisions made

HARSAHAIMAL SHIAMLAL JEWELLERS PVIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Harsahaimal Shiamlal Jewellers Shri Vimalendu Verma, Private Limited, 148, Civil Lines, Vs. Pcit (Central), Lucknow, U.P. Bareilly, U.P.-243001 Pan:Aacch3785L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Act, Passed By The Ld. Pcit, Central ,Lucknow On 17.02.2022, Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer, Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act On 29.07.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred, Are As Under:-

7 That the Learned PCIT, Bareilly has erred in holding that it is a case of "lack of enquiry" and, further failing to appreciate that alleged inadequate enquiry in the manner suggested without any independent evidence and, without any further enquiries by him cannot be a basis for assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Grounds

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

154\ntaxman.com 503 (Chd-Trib) wherein the Tribunal has held that where an\nembezzlement of funds of employees had occurred during the course of day to day\ncarrying out charitable activities by the assessee trust, and there was no doubt about\nthe fact of embezzlement, the same was allowable as a revenue loss. We further\nobserve that

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

TDS and grant the benefit to the assessee as per law.\nOn the issue of charging of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C, holding that\nthe charging of interest was mandatory, he rejected the plea of the assessee but\ndirected the ld. AO to allow the consequential relief that would arise as a result of\nthe decisions made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BAREILLY vs. MS VARUNA WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2020-21 Dcit, Circle-1 M/S Varuna V. Aaykar Bhavan, Kamla Nehru Warehousing Pvt Ltd Marg, Rampur Garden, Civil Shyam Ganj, Near Amar Lines, Uttar Pradesh-243001. Ujala Press, Uttar Pradesh-243005. Pan: Aaecc5529M (Appellant) (Respondent) C. O. No. 23/Lkw/2024 (In Arising Out Of Ita. No. 276/Lkw/2024) Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/S Varuna Warehousing Pvt Dcit, Circle-1 V. Ltd Aaykar Bhavan, Kamla Shyam Ganj, Near Amar Ujala Nehru Marg, Rampur Press, Uttar Pradesh-243005. Garden, Civil Lines, Uttar Pradesh-243001. Pan: Aaecc5529M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 02 2025 O R D E R

154 of the Act, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified and entertaining the appeal and passing the impugned order. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order has decided the issue by observing as under: - “6. These grounds of appeal are in relation to the appellant