M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

deduction of depreciation\nand, therefore, we are allowing the benefit of deduction of\ndepreciation in all the three years under

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

deduction in the form of depreciation. And lastly, impugned item not an expenditure deductible under general deduction 37(1) of the Act for the vanilla

JCIT(OSD), CC-1, LKO, LUCKNOW vs. ACP TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

depreciation, allowed deduction towards\namortization of expenses relatable to money spent for construction of\ninfrastructure facilities, i.e. bus terminal. Once

ACIT (E), LUCKNOW vs. SHIV RAM DAS GULITI MEMORIAL SOCIETY, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit (Exemptions) Shiv Ram Das Gulati V. T. C. 46V, 5Th Floor, U.P.S.I.D.C Memorial Society Ltd, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti 53, Leader Road, Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Allahabad, Up Pan:Aabts4990G (Appellant) (Respondent) C. O. No. 05/Lkw/2022 (In Arising Out Of Ita. No. 09/Lkw/2020) Assessment Year:. 2014-15 Shiv Ram Das Gulati V. Acit (Exemptions) Memorial Society T. C. 46V, 5Th Floor, 53, Leader Road, Allahabad, U.P.S.I.D.C Ltd, Vibhuti Up. Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aabts4990G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Manish Kumar Deorah, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13 08 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 08 2024 O R D E R

depreciation amounts to double deduction which is not permissible under I. T. Act. 2. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred

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

deduction u/s 801A\nThe assessee was also asked to file a computation in respect of eligible units\nwith depreciation claim

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

deduction u/s 801A\nThe assessee was also asked to file a computation in respect of eligible units\nwith depreciation claim

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

In the result, appeals vide I

deduction u/s 801A\n\nThe assessee was also asked to file a computation in respect of eligible units\nwith depreciation

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.

deduction for unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 3,13,97,298/- and worked out the net capital gain at Rs. 1,06,49,144/-. The ld. AO thereafter

M/S GULATI EXTRUSIONS PVT. LTD,KANPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Gulati Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit 17-A, Co-Operative Industrial Circle 2(1)(1) Estate Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaacg5008M (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 1.3.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of Five Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Director Of The Assessee Company Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Stating Therein That The Papers Required For Filing The Appeal Was Sent Through Speed Post On 27.4.2021 Well Within The Limitation Period, However The Same Was Delivered By The Postal Authorities In The Office Of The Tribunal On 5.5.2021. It Was Further Stated That Since The Nominal Delay Of Five Days Was Due To Late Delivery Of The Dak By The Postal Authorities, The Delay May Be Condoned & The Appeal Be Admitted For Hearing. Having Carefully Perused The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That There Was Sufficient Cause For The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. Accordingly, The Delay Of 5 Days Is Condoned & Admit This Appeal For Hearing.

deductions, such as Sections 32-37, on the other hand, deal primarily with business, commercial or professional expenditure, under various heads (including depreciation

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

deductions, such as Sections 32-37, on the other hand, deal primarily with business, commercial or professional expenditure, under various heads (including depreciation

M/S. VANI SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 6(4), LUCKNOW

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

deduction claimed on account of depreciation was admissible and whether funds received in the form of share premium were from

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

deduction of Rs.1,55, 15,994/-, being\nthe depreciation on the same. The ld. AO also observed that the assessee

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

deduction of Rs.1,55,15,994/-, being the depreciation on the same. The ld. AO also observed that the assessee

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

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

deducted tax @ 10% u/s 194H of the Act. Thus, the\nAssessing Officer made an addition of Rs.44,60,000/- in this\n\nITA Nos.90 to 93/LKW/2022\nPage 3 of 18\nregard and further the Assessing officer disallowed depreciation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E), LUCKNOW vs. M/S. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CARPET TECHNOLOGY , BHADOHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Indian Institute Of Carpet Income-Tax (Exemption), Technology, Chauri Road, Srn, Lucknow Bhadohi Pan: Aaaji0124M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akash Agrawal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Department Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Deleted The Addition Of Rs.1,70,77,516/- That Was Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer On Account Of Surplus Above 15% Of Gross Receipts. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Deleting The Addition Made Of Rs. 1,70,77,516/- On Account Of Amount Surplus Above 15% Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Instead Of Utilizing This Amount Or Crediting This Amount To Income & Expenditure Account, This Sum Was Directly Credited To Balance Sheet. 2. Appellant Craves Leave To Modify/Amend Or Add Any One Or More Grounds Of Appeal.” 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Society Is Registered Under Section 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Vide Order Dated 11.12.2006 Of The Ld. Cit, Varanasi. From A Perusal Of The Papers Submitted By The Assessee As Well As The Data Available Online, The Ld. Assessing Officer Found That There Was A Receipt Of A Grant

deduction under section 11(1) of the Act. He also disallowed depreciation of Rs. 65,45,834/- in accordance with

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (FORMELY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),LUCKNOW vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result all six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

deduction for all application of income during the year. On the issue of claim \nof depreciation under section 11 (6) in the income

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

deduction for all application of income during the year. On the issue of claim \nof depreciation under section 11 (6) in the income

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

deduction for all application of income during the year. On the issue of claim \nof depreciation under section 11 (6) in the income