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

depreciation as shown in\nthe audit report. The contention that the AO should have made\nenquiry/verification on these items while passing the impugned order raises the\nquestion as to how these finding was arrived and basis for issuing notice u/s\n263.\nHowever, in the impugned order, the Ld. PCIT has neither discussed nor\nrebutted the appellant's reply

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

u/s 263\nGoyal Family Trust v. CIT 171 ITR 698 (Alld)\nMerely because the AO's order is brief and cryptic that itself would not be\na case for revision.\nHari Iron Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax-263 ITR 437\nA bare perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that the Commissioner\ncan exercise powers under sub-section

GENUS POWER INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITTED,NOIDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTERAL), LUCKNOW

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

revision directing the assessing officer to\nmake further enquires. We according set aside the order of learned CIT for\n assessment year 1996-97\"----(Emphasis supplied) The Hon'ble Bangalore\nITAT further observed as under:\n\n-------“The assessee is now in appeal before us against the aforesaid\nfindings of the CIT. At the outset, the Ld. AR on behalf

ALLIANCE NIRMAAN LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

revision u s 263\ncannot be exercised for redoing the investigation, rather the\nCIT ought to have done the investigation himself before\nrestoring the matter to the AO.\n9.\nGrounds No. 9: The Learned PCIT, Bareilly has further ignored\nthat in view of the provisions of explanation 2 of section 263, it\nis incumbent to point out what more enquiries

PRECIOUS BJUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, , BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.66/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Precious Buildtech Pvt Ltd V. Pcit Harmony Apartment, Adiacent Income Tax Department, To Bedi International School, Bareilly-243001. Dental College Road, Pilibhit Bypass Road, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aagcp1255R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Mazhar Akram, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 09 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

depreciation was claimed in excess has not been undertaken by the PCIT. 12. Mr. Asheesh Jain then volunteered that the PCIT had exercised the second option available to him under Section 263 (1) of the Act by sending the entire matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment. That option, in the considered view of the Court

U.P RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita Nos.161/Lkw/2019 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं/ Ita Nos.174/Lkw/2019 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 U.P Rajya Vidyut Utpadan V. Dcit, Range-Vi Nigam Ltd 3Rd Floor, 27/2, Raja Ram 7Th Floor, Shakti Bhawan Mohan Rai Marg, P. K. Extension 14, Ashok Marg, Complex, Lucknow- Lucknow-226001. 226001. Pan: Aaacu4749D अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.209/Lkw/2019 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Range-Vi V. U.P Rajya Vidyut 3Rd Floor, 27/2, Raja Ram Utpadan Nigam Ltd Mohan Rai Marg, P. K. 7Th Floor, Shakti Bhawan Complex, Lucknow-226001. Extension 14, Ashok Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aaacu4749D अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Sandeep Jain, C.A प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04 12 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 20 01 2026 Pronouncement:

depreciation on WDV is liable to be allowed in subsequent years also in view of Explanation 5 of section 32 of the income Tax Act, 1961. This is without prejudice to the assessee's ground in appeal for A.Y. 2004-05 in which the treatment of repairs and maintenance expenditure as capital expenditure has been contested. 5. Because the learned

U.P RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita Nos.161/Lkw/2019 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं/ Ita Nos.174/Lkw/2019 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 U.P Rajya Vidyut Utpadan V. Dcit, Range-Vi Nigam Ltd 3Rd Floor, 27/2, Raja Ram 7Th Floor, Shakti Bhawan Mohan Rai Marg, P. K. Extension 14, Ashok Marg, Complex, Lucknow- Lucknow-226001. 226001. Pan: Aaacu4749D अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.209/Lkw/2019 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Range-Vi V. U.P Rajya Vidyut 3Rd Floor, 27/2, Raja Ram Utpadan Nigam Ltd Mohan Rai Marg, P. K. 7Th Floor, Shakti Bhawan Complex, Lucknow-226001. Extension 14, Ashok Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aaacu4749D अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Sandeep Jain, C.A प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04 12 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 20 01 2026 Pronouncement:

depreciation on WDV is liable to be allowed in subsequent years also in view of Explanation 5 of section 32 of the income Tax Act, 1961. This is without prejudice to the assessee's ground in appeal for A.Y. 2004-05 in which the treatment of repairs and maintenance expenditure as capital expenditure has been contested. 5. Because the learned

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, LUCKNOW vs. U.P RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita Nos.161/Lkw/2019 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं/ Ita Nos.174/Lkw/2019 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 U.P Rajya Vidyut Utpadan V. Dcit, Range-Vi Nigam Ltd 3Rd Floor, 27/2, Raja Ram 7Th Floor, Shakti Bhawan Mohan Rai Marg, P. K. Extension 14, Ashok Marg, Complex, Lucknow- Lucknow-226001. 226001. Pan: Aaacu4749D अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.209/Lkw/2019 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Range-Vi V. U.P Rajya Vidyut 3Rd Floor, 27/2, Raja Ram Utpadan Nigam Ltd Mohan Rai Marg, P. K. 7Th Floor, Shakti Bhawan Complex, Lucknow-226001. Extension 14, Ashok Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aaacu4749D अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Sandeep Jain, C.A प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04 12 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 20 01 2026 Pronouncement:

depreciation on WDV is liable to be allowed in subsequent years also in view of Explanation 5 of section 32 of the income Tax Act, 1961. This is without prejudice to the assessee's ground in appeal for A.Y. 2004-05 in which the treatment of repairs and maintenance expenditure as capital expenditure has been contested. 5. Because the learned

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

depreciated has already been\nrevised as per IT Rules. Sum of Rs.2,21,72,493/- was allocated as per Companies\nAct, which figure was not correct. Further, the in terms of Rule 18BBB of the IT\nRules, the claim of deduction u/s 801A has to be made in the return of income and\nthe accompanying documents, including form 10CCB

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.

u/s 143(3) wherein voluminous queries were raised which were complied with and 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. 1 Navudai

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

u/s 11(1) of the Act  purchase cost of Fixed Assets, during the year under consideration, aggregating to Rs 14,96,91,583 less depreciation at Rs 1,55, 15,994/-  cash deposits aggregating to Rs 5,59,55,800/-  10% of the aggregate expenses of Rs 67,71,95,436/-which comes to Rs 6,77,19,543/- considering

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

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

u/s 11(1) of the Act\n•\npurchase cost of Fixed Assets, during the year under consideration,\naggregating to Rs 14,96,91,583 less depreciation at Rs 1,55, 15,994/-\n•\ncash deposits aggregating to Rs 5,59,55,800/-\n•\n10% of the aggregate expenses of Rs 67,71,95,436/-which comes

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

depreciation of Rs. 14,99,267/- has already been disallowed, the net profit rate of 11% applied by the Assessing Officer is too high when appellant has shown comparatively higher profit margin of 10.13% and 9.68% in subsequent years i.e. A.Y. 2021-22 and A.Y. 2022- 23 to cover up the deficiencies of unproved sundry creditors/remission of liabilities found during

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

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

depreciation of Rs. 14,99,267/- has already been disallowed, the net profit rate of 11% applied by the Assessing Officer is too high when appellant has shown comparatively higher profit margin of 10.13% and 9.68% in subsequent years i.e. A.Y. 2021-22 and A.Y. 2022- 23 to cover up the deficiencies of unproved sundry creditors/remission of liabilities found during

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

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

depreciation of Rs. 14,99,267/- has already been disallowed, the net profit rate of 11% applied by the Assessing Officer is too high when appellant has shown comparatively higher profit margin of 10.13% and 9.68% in subsequent years i.e. A.Y. 2021-22 and A.Y. 2022- 23 to cover up the deficiencies of unproved sundry creditors/remission of liabilities found during

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

u/s 10 (23C) of The Act are the statements of those persons. For this year, original assessment is already completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 27 March 2014 therefore, it clearly shows that impugned assessment is a concluded assessment at the time of search. Such retracted statement also cannot be said to be incriminating material found during

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

u/s 10 (23C) of The Act are the statements of those persons. For this year, original assessment is already completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 27 March 2014 therefore, it clearly shows that impugned assessment is a concluded assessment at the time of search. Such retracted statement also cannot be said to be incriminating material found during

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. M/S NARAIN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES PVT. LTD., KANPUR

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

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

u/s 69 of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) has totally ignored the fact that the balance sheet showing creditors of Rs.3,34,87,504/- is matched in totality. If the error is termed as typographical error, then the balance sheet can not be matched. Ld. CIT(A) has also ignored the fact that in tax audit report of the company