M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

TDS : Rs.1,699/- (iv) Addition under section 14A of the Act : Rs.36,310/- ITA No.701 & 702/LKW/2017 Page 10 of 17 8. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 24/10/2013 issued under section 263 of the Act, as reproduced hereinabove, shows that there is nothing contained therein with regard to the above additions or disallowances, but for the issue

M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

TDS : Rs.1,699/- (iv) Addition under section 14A of the Act : Rs.36,310/- ITA No.701 & 702/LKW/2017 Page 10 of 17 8. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 24/10/2013 issued under section 263 of the Act, as reproduced hereinabove, shows that there is nothing contained therein with regard to the above additions or disallowances, but for the issue

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

TDS provision under section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is\nestimated.\n\n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,000/- being disallowances of expenses\nunder section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is estimated.\n\n5. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow

KWALITY RESTAURANT,KANPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 Kwality Restaurant V. The Cit(A) 16/97, The Mall Delhi Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaafk8712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.9.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 115 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Which Is Also Supported By An Affidavit. 3. I Have Gone Through The Application For Condonation Of Delay As Well As The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee & Heard The Contention Of The Ld. D.R. On The Issue Of Condonation Of Delay. The Ld. D.R. Has Objected To The Condonatiion Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Is Shifting The Blame Of Delay On Its Counsel. 4. Having Considered The Reasons Explained By The Assessee In The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That The Assessee Has Explained The Cause Of Delay That Due To An Oversight Of The Counsel Of The Assessee, Necessary Steps For Filing

44. There is no doubt that in Alom Extrusions, this court did consider the impact of deletion of second proviso to Section 43B, which mandated that unless the amount of employers' contribution was deposited with the authorities, the deduction otherwise permissible in law, would not be available. This court was of the opinion that the omission was curative, and that

PAWAN JAISWAL,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1(3), KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Pawan Jaiswal V. The Income Tax Officer 1(3) 29/43, Ghumni Bazar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpj4999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

section 68 of the Act to 50%, i.e., Rs.2,44,000/- and with regard to the addition of Rs.4,68,172/- on account of Sundry Creditors, the NFAC directed the AO to allow the same subject to verification. 2.2 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the impugned order of the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

44,732/- for the assessment year 2007-08 and at Rs.225,45,17,400/- in the assessment year 2008-09. The ld. AO analyzed the functions and powers of the Board as laid down in section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter known as UPAEVPA, 1965) and came to the conclusion that a plain

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

44,732/- for the assessment year 2007-08 and at Rs.225,45,17,400/- in the assessment year 2008-09. The ld. AO analyzed the functions and powers of the Board as laid down in section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter known as UPAEVPA, 1965) and came to the conclusion that a plain

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

44,732/- for the assessment year 2007-08 and at Rs.225,45,17,400/- in the assessment year 2008-09. The ld. AO analyzed the functions and powers of the Board as laid down in section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter known as UPAEVPA, 1965) and came to the conclusion that a plain

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

44,732/- for the assessment year 2007-08 and at Rs.225,45,17,400/- in the assessment year 2008-09. The ld. AO analyzed the functions and powers of the Board as laid down in section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter known as UPAEVPA, 1965) and came to the conclusion that a plain

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

44,732/- for the assessment year 2007-08 and at Rs.225,45,17,400/- in the assessment year 2008-09. The ld. AO analyzed the functions and powers of the Board as laid down in section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter known as UPAEVPA, 1965) and came to the conclusion that a plain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, in as much as the original assessment order dated 11-02-2016 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. That the Ld. PCIT was wrong in not passing an speaking order ignoring the submissions made by the assessee during proceeding u/s 263 rendering the order under appeal

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)

section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act and pointed out that against total receipts of Rs.1537223917/-, the assessee had net profit of Rs.95,60,17,385.48/- during the year and funds generated out of profit year after year were invested into fixed deposits and other deposits which resulted in interest income of Rs.29,44,83,617.60/-, which also included

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)

section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act and pointed out that against total receipts of Rs.1537223917/-, the assessee had net profit of Rs.95,60,17,385.48/- during the year and funds generated out of profit year after year were invested into fixed deposits and other deposits which resulted in interest income of Rs.29,44,83,617.60/-, which also included

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)

section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act and pointed out that against total receipts of Rs.1537223917/-, the assessee had net profit of Rs.95,60,17,385.48/- during the year and funds generated out of profit year after year were invested into fixed deposits and other deposits which resulted in interest income of Rs.29,44,83,617.60/-, which also included

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)

section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act and pointed out that against total receipts of Rs.1537223917/-, the assessee had net profit of Rs.95,60,17,385.48/- during the year and funds generated out of profit year after year were invested into fixed deposits and other deposits which resulted in interest income of Rs.29,44,83,617.60/-, which also included

M/S U.P RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. The Dy. Cit Nigam Ltd. Range Vi Visheshwaraiya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Dy. Cit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Range Vi Nigam Ltd. Lucknow Visheshwaraiya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan: Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Department By: Smt. Sheela Chopra, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04 10 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 12 2021 O R D E R

TDS relating to FDR's of unutilized fund but is not showing the interest income of FDR's in its income which is against provisions of Section-198 and 199 of Income Tax Act 1961. 4. Apropos the sole ground raised by the assessee relating to addition under section 43B of the Act, the ld. CIT(A), while confirming

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. The Dy. Cit Nigam Ltd. Range Vi Visheshwaraiya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Dy. Cit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Range Vi Nigam Ltd. Lucknow Visheshwaraiya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan: Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Department By: Smt. Sheela Chopra, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04 10 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 12 2021 O R D E R

TDS relating to FDR's of unutilized fund but is not showing the interest income of FDR's in its income which is against provisions of Section-198 and 199 of Income Tax Act 1961. 4. Apropos the sole ground raised by the assessee relating to addition under section 43B of the Act, the ld. CIT(A), while confirming

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT,RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, ita No.164/LKW/2022 stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

sections 198 and 199 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’), the interest income of Rs.33,49,65,000/- was liable to be added to the total income, as the assessee had claimed TDS relating to said interest income. The AO also disallowed prior period expenses, amounting to Rs.66,44