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

73,429/-\nAs per formula given in Rule 8D(ii) for the current year, disallowance was to be\nworked out as under: AxB/C, i.e. 116610727 x 159368990/9611573429 =\n19335162 i.e. Rs. 1,93,35, 162/- =\nFurther in terms of Rule 8D(iii), disallowance was proposed as under: Half\npercent of average investment

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

In the result, appeals vide I

73,429/-\n\nAs per formula given in Rule 8D(ii) for the current year, disallowance was to be\nworked out as under: AxB/C, i.e. 116610727 x 159368990/9611573429 =\n19335162 i.e. Rs.1,93,35, 162/-\n\nFurther in terms of Rule 8D(iii), disallowance was proposed as under: Half\npercent of average investment

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

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 The Asstt. Commissioner V. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd Of Income Tax B-9, Vibhuti Khand Central Circle Ii Gomti Nagar Lucnow Lucknow Pan:Aadca5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.19/Lkw/2017 [In Ita No.66/Lkw/2017] Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-9, Vibhuti Khand Income Tax Gomti Nagar Central Circle Ii Lucknow Lucnow Pan:Aadca5639H (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

73,600/- was shown. The AO did not allow the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for the reason that it was not claimed in the original return filed within the due date prescribed. All the four projects were awarded to appellant buy UP PWD for infrastructure development. All the relevant conditions for claim of deduction under section 80IA

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

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

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

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 (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S 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 (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S 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

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

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

ROSHANI TRIPATHI,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT RANGE 1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

TDS is being misused. Whereas CIT(A) has confirmed the order of AO and disallowed the amount of and ignoring the content of undertaking submitted to CBI and a mail from ITO ward 73(1). 9. Assessee has been engaged in business of Liquor since last 35 years but there has been no dispute with regard to assessment I.T.A. No.375/Lkw/2023

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

73,237/- vide order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Aggrieved with this assessment framed by the AO, the appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 3. During the course of appellate proceedings, Shri S.C. Agarwal, Advocate and Shri Pradeep Agarwal, Senior Accounts Officer appeared before me and filed written

U.P SAMAJ KALYAN NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS U.P STATE CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.),LUCKNOW vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, LUCKNOW

73,237/- vide order under Section 143(3) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Aggrieved with this\nassessment framed by the AO, the appeal has been preferred by the appellant.\n3. During the course of appellate proceedings, Shri S.C. Agarwal, Advocate and\nShri Pradeep Agarwal, Senior Accounts Officer appeared before me and filed\nwritten

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. UTTAR PRADESH POLICE AND ARMED FORCES SAHAYATA SANSTHAN, LUCKNOW

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer V. Uttar Pradesh Police & Armed (Exemption) Forces Sahayata Sansthan Lucknow Room No.6, Naveen Bhawan U.P. Sachivalaya, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaatr4272K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Respondent By: Shri B. P. Yadav, Advocate O R D E R

73,810/-. 3.0 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the additions made by the AO. 4.0 Now, the Revenue has approached this Tribunal, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A), by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(Appeal)-4, Lucknow

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR vs. COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-5, Kanpur 84/105, Kailash Motors Building, G.T. Road, Afim Kothi, Kanpur-208003 Pan: Aaccc4267E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (A)- 2, Kanpur Dated 25.09.2017, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y. 2006-07 On 23.12.2008. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 5,32,366/- U/S 14A Without Taken Into Consideration That The Expenditure Incurred In Relation To Exempt Income. 02. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 99,56,258/-Without Appreciating That The Provisions Of Sec. 50C Have Been Invoked By The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Stamp Valuation Of The Property. The Assessee Has Not Claimed Before The Assessing Office To Make The Reference To The Valuation Officer U/S 55A Of It Act, 1961. 3 That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 3,20,90,164/- On Account Of Loss Claimed On Sale Of Shares Without Appreciating That The Transaction As Claimed Were Sham & Was Incorporated Only To Evade The Capital Gain Earned On The Sale Of Properties. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Ignoring The Facts Noted By The Assessing Officer Regarding The Transaction Of Sale Of Shares.

73,080/-. During the course of assessment, the ld. AO made the following additions:- i. Out of bad debts claimed being TDS Rs. 5,30,187/- ii. Out of bad debts claimed as unrecoverable Rs. 4,05,770/- iii. On account of cessation of liabilities under section 41(1

SHIVANSH INFRAESTATE PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

1. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union of India reported in 73 Taxmann.com 252 / 289 CTR 602. 2. Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of United metals Vs ITO TDS Reported in 137 taxmann.com 115 (Kerala) 3. Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Bhaskar Roy Vs. ITO TDS Reported in 135 taxmann.com 336 (Kolkata

SHIVANSH INFRAESTATE PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTERALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

1. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union of India reported in 73 Taxmann.com 252 / 289 CTR 602. 2. Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of United metals Vs ITO TDS Reported in 137 taxmann.com 115 (Kerala) 3. Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Bhaskar Roy Vs. ITO TDS Reported in 135 taxmann.com 336 (Kolkata