AGMOTEX FABRICS LTD.,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-6, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2005-06 Agmotex Fabrics Ltd V. The Dy. Commissioner 3/239 Vishnupuri, Kanpur- Of Income Tax, Range-6 208002. Aayakar Bhawan, 16/69, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Aabca6099H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23 02 2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15 04 2026 O R D E R

loss incurred by the assessee under other head of income or brought forward from earlier years, the total income is reduced to a figure lower than the concealed income or even a minus figure. The court was of the opinion that „the tax sought to be evaded‟ will mean the tax chargeable not as if it were the total income

NAVUDAI SHIKSHAN AND JAN KALYAN SEWA SAMITI,KANPUR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Navudai Shikshan & Jan Kalyan Sewa Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Samiti, 117/K/30, Sarvodaya Nagar, Tax (Exemption), Lucknow Kanpur-208005 Pan: Aagfn4916N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (Exemption), Lucknow Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 30.03.2021 Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act For The A.Y. 2016-17 On 15.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Order Passed By Cit(E) U/S 263 Of The Act Dt. 30.03.2021 Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Be Quashed. 02. Because The Order Passed By Ao, Being Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue The Action Of The Cit(E) Set-Asiding The Said Order Is Without Jurisdiction, Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, Be Quashed. 03. Because The Order Passed By The Ao Being Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue, The Cit(E) Has Erred In Law In Setting Aside The Same, The Order Passed By Cit(E) Be Quashed & That As Passed By The Ao Be Restored. 04. Because The Cit(E) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Initial Assessment Was A Deep Scrutiny Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) Wherein Voluminous Queries Were Raised Which Were Complied With & Thoroughly Examined/ Verified By The Ao, The Necessary Enquiring Having Being Done, It Is Neither A Case Of No Inquiring Or Lack Of Enquiring, As Such The Cit(E) Has Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order, The Order Passed By Cit(E) Be Quashed.

loss to the revenue, in as much as there being no tax payable either on the income returned or the income to be determined, the order passed by the CIT(E) is contrary to the mandate of section 263 of the Act, the order passed by CIT(E) be quashed.” 2. It is observed that the assessee’s appeal

SHRI RAJEEV JAIN,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Rajeev Jain V. The Ito-3 15, Plot No.17 Kanpur Singh Engg. Compound 84/21, Fazalganj Kanpur - 12 Tan/Pan:Abfpj1327D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Alka Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29 11 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 12 2022 O R D E R

carried forward from earlier years, amounting to Rs.24 lakhs. The Assessing Officer also noted that the assessee has paid interest of Rs.3,88,800/- to M/s Success Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer noted that M/s Success Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. is a Calcutta based jamakharchi Company which was established during the survey proceedings conducted by the Investigation Wing of Calcutta

ITO-6(1), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,, LUCKNOW

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.261/Lkw/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1), Lucknow . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

depreciation. And lastly, impugned item not an expenditure deductible under general deduction 37(1) of the Act for the vanilla reasons that such provision fails to pass the litmus test prescribed therein. Once it so then there is no provision in the law conferring any discretion to tax authorities to allow deduction. On the contrary, impugned item calls for disallowance

KHANDELWAL SOYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,RAMPUR vs. ACIT(CENTERAL), BAREILLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the\nterms indicated hereinbefore

Loss Account. It has been observed that in the year\nunder consideration business activity had been closed down by the\nappellant; therefore, I am of the considered view that depreciation on Plant\n& Machinery is not allowable. Therefore, there was no interference\nrequired in the decision of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, this ground of\nappeal is dismissed

ACIT(E), LUCKNOW vs. M/S. BHAGWANT INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, BIJNOR

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

depreciation and\namortization. This basis is also referred to as ‘Mercantile Basis of\nAccounting'.\nAccrual basis of accounting records the financial effects of the transactions\nand other events in the period in which they occur rather than recording\nthem in the period(s) in which cash is received or paid. Accrual basis\nrecognises that the economic events often

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

loss on sale of Fixed Assets Rs. 8,83,439/-along with provision for incentive allowance Rs. 21,40,000/- under the head Employee Benefit Expenses' and yet taking an adverse view of the matter which amounts to arbitrary exercise of power.3 5. That the Ld. PCIT was wrong in referring the ITAT order dated

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

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

loss the public at large. In such a situation, what chanty the assessee is doing is not known/beyond imagination. If registration is granted to the assessee, it will open a pandora box wherein every colonizer/builder will ask for registration under section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact

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

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

loss the public at large. In such a situation, what chanty the assessee is doing is not known/beyond imagination. If registration is granted to the assessee, it will open a pandora box wherein every colonizer/builder will ask for registration under section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact

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

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

loss the public at large. In such a situation, what chanty the assessee is doing is not known/beyond imagination. If registration is granted to the assessee, it will open a pandora box wherein every colonizer/builder will ask for registration under section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact

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

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

loss the public at large. In such a situation, what chanty the assessee is doing is not known/beyond imagination. If registration is granted to the assessee, it will open a pandora box wherein every colonizer/builder will ask for registration under section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact

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

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

loss the public at large. In such a situation, what chanty the assessee is doing is not known/beyond imagination. If registration is granted to the assessee, it will open a pandora box wherein every colonizer/builder will ask for registration under section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact

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

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

loss the public at large. In such a situation, what chanty the assessee is doing is not known/beyond imagination. If registration is granted to the assessee, it will open a pandora box wherein every colonizer/builder will ask for registration under section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact

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

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

loss the public at large. In such a situation, what chanty the assessee is doing is not known/beyond imagination. If registration is granted to the assessee, it will open a pandora box wherein every colonizer/builder will ask for registration under section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact

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

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

loss the public at large. In such a situation, what chanty the assessee is doing is not known/beyond imagination. If registration is granted to the assessee, it will open a pandora box wherein every colonizer/builder will ask for registration under section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact

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

carried out in the case of Poddar Group of Mumbai and the DDIT ( Inv.) has found that the assessee is into money laundering activities through bogus donations given by Poddar Group Trust, Mumbai. In this respect, it was the submission of the assessee that name of the assessee mentioned by Sh. K. D. Suba, CA and Sh. JayeshZanani, Manager Accounts

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

carried out in the case of Poddar Group of Mumbai and the DDIT ( Inv.) has found that the assessee is into money laundering activities through bogus donations given by Poddar Group Trust, Mumbai. In this respect, it was the submission of the assessee that name of the assessee mentioned by Sh. K. D. Suba, CA and Sh. JayeshZanani, Manager Accounts

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

depreciation of Head Office. In\nthe impugned appellate order, the learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing\nOfficer to verify the assessee's submissions in this regard and to allow\ndeduction u/s 80IA of the Act if the assessee's claim is found to be legally\nand factually correct. We find no infirmity in this direction given by learned\nCIT