MANOJ DWIVEDI,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-3(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Manoj Dwivedi V. Ito-3(2) 254, Chandralok Lucknow - New Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Afgpd1753C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12 02 2025 O R D E R

section 271AAC of the Act, separately. ITA No.749/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 6 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The appeal was migrated to the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of there being a delay of 198 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. First Appellate

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

condoned the delay in filing the Cross Objections and asked learned CIT, D.R. to proceed with her arguments on the Cross Objections. 4. Learned CIT, D.R. submitted that the Cross Objections are similar to the additional grounds of Revenue taken by the Revenue in the appeals no.630, Page 8 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 631 and others which

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

condoned the delay in filing the Cross Objections and asked learned CIT, D.R. to proceed with her arguments on the Cross Objections. 4. Learned CIT, D.R. submitted that the Cross Objections are similar to the additional grounds of Revenue taken by the Revenue in the appeals no.630, Page 8 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 631 and others which

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

condoned the delay in filing the Cross Objections and asked learned CIT, D.R. to proceed with her arguments on the Cross Objections. 4. Learned CIT, D.R. submitted that the Cross Objections are similar to the additional grounds of Revenue taken by the Revenue in the appeals no.630, Page 8 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 631 and others which

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. D.C.I.T. RANGE-6 (JAO), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

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.66,44,641/- and added back the same

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

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.66,44,641/- and added back the same

NISHA FAZAL,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO-4(3), KANPUR-01

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay in filing of this\nappeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing.\n4.\nThe facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual\nand retired from the post of Chief Manager from LIC. The Assessing Officer\npassed assessment order under section 144 read with section 147 of the\nI.T. Act on 05/12/2019 assessing

MY STYLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-4(5) LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

198 ITR 297 (SC)). 5. Non-Application of Judicial Precedents : The authorities failed to consider binding judicial precedents, including: Smt. Harshtta Chordia v. ITO (2008) 298 ITR 349 (Raj): Cash receipts against goods delivery are trade advances, not unexplained credits. 6. Violation of Natural Justice : The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order without independent inquiry or due consideration

SHRI MANOJ SHARMA,BAREILY vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BAREILY

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2003-2004 Shri Manoj Sharma V. The Acit-1 S/O Shri J.S. Sharma Bareilly Swaley Nagar Bareilly Tan/Pan:Avcps7127B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29 08 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at a total income of Rs.10,53,040/-, as under: Income from Trading Rs.4,61,500/- Income from Contract Work Rs.5,80,181/- Interest income as shown Rs.11,355/- Total Rs.10,53,036/- ITA No.393/LKW/2017 Page 2 of 3 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before

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

In the result, appeals vide I

198\n4\nJEEVNATHPUR\n115,758,167\n117,322,362\n- 1,564,195\n5\nKACHWA\n34,624,288\n34,740,997\n-116,709\nTotal\n451,476,014\n452,146,001\n-669,987\n\nTherefore resulting to above profit of eligible units will be reduced by\nRs.6,69,987/- in aggregate for computing deduction u/s 801A\n\nThe assessee

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

198\n4\nJEEVNATHPUR 115,758,167\n117,322,362\n- 1,564,195\n5\nKACHWA\n34,624,288\n34,740,997\n-116,709\nTotal\n451,476,014\n452,146,001\n-669,987\nTherefore resulting to above profit of eligible units will be reduced by\nRs.6,69,987/- in aggregate for computing deduction u/s 801A\nThe assessee was also

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

condoned the same and proceeded the case/s on merits. 3. Since the facts and solitary issue involved in this bunch of appeals are identical, on no objection from the Revenue, for the sake of brevity these appeals are heard together for a common and consolidated order. 4. Briefly stated the facts culled out of case records are that

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

condoned the same and proceeded the case/s on merits. 3. Since the facts and solitary issue involved in this bunch of appeals are identical, on no objection from the Revenue, for the sake of brevity these appeals are heard together for a common and consolidated order. 4. Briefly stated the facts culled out of case records are that

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW., LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

condoned the same and proceeded the case/s on merits. 3. Since the facts and solitary issue involved in this bunch of appeals are identical, on no objection from the Revenue, for the sake of brevity these appeals are heard together for a common and consolidated order. 4. Briefly stated the facts culled out of case records are that

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

condoned the same and proceeded the case/s on merits. 3. Since the facts and solitary issue involved in this bunch of appeals are identical, on no objection from the Revenue, for the sake of brevity these appeals are heard together for a common and consolidated order. 4. Briefly stated the facts culled out of case records are that

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

condoned the same and proceeded the case/s on merits. 3. Since the facts and solitary issue involved in this bunch of appeals are identical, on no objection from the Revenue, for the sake of brevity these appeals are heard together for a common and consolidated order. 4. Briefly stated the facts culled out of case records are that

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

198\n4\nJEEVNATHPUR\n115,758,167\n117,322,362\n- 1,564,195\n5\nKACHWA\n34,624,288\n34,740,997\n-116,709\nTotal\n451,476,014\n452,146,001\n-669,987\nTherefore resulting to above profit of eligible units will be reduced by\nRs.6,69,987/- in aggregate for computing deduction u/s 801A\nThe assessee was also

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)

198 ITR 197, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the questions which were before the Court, it concluded that since the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court did not relate to the impugned

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)

198 ITR 197, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the questions which were before the Court, it concluded that since the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court did not relate to the impugned