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

139(1) & u/s 148\n\n2.\nCopy of Audited Financial Statement & Form-10CCB\n\n3.\nCopy of notice u/s 148 dt.26/03/2022,\n\n4.\nCopy of notice u/s 143(2) dt. 24/06/2022 & u/s 142(1) dt.\n13.07.2022 & 06.02.2023\n\n5.\nDt.\nCopy of Replies filed during Reassessment Proceeding.\n27.06.2022, 20.07.2022, 03.08.2022, 09.01.2023,\n16.02.2023 03.03.2023, 16.03.2023, 21.03.2023 & 22.03.2023\n\n6.\nCopy

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

139(1) & u/s 148\n2. Copy of Audited Financial Statement & Form-10CCB\n3. Copy of notice u/s 148 dt.26/03/2022,\n4. Copy of notice u/s 143(2) dt. 24/06/2022 & u/s 142(1) dt.\n13.07.2022 & 06.02.2023\n5. Copy of Replies filed during Reassessment Proceeding.\nDt. 27.06.2022, 20.07.2022, 03.08.2022, 09.01.2023,\n16.02.2023 03.03.2023, 16.03.2023, 21.03.2023 & 22.03.2023\n6. Copy of Replies filed before CIT(Appeal

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

In the result, appeals vide I

139(1) & u/s 148\n2.\nCopy of Audited Financial Statement & Form-10CCB\n3.\nCopy of notice u/s 148 dt.26/03/2022,\n4.\nCopy of notice u/s 143(2) dt. 24/06/2022 & u/s 142(1) dt.\n13.07.2022 & 06.02.2023\n5.\nDt.\nCopy of Replies filed during Reassessment Proceeding.\n27.06.2022, 20.07.2022, 03.08.2022, 09.01.2023,\n16.02.2023 03.03.2023, 16.03.2023, 21.03.2023 & 22.03.2023\n6.\nCopy of Replies filed before CIT(Appeal

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.

139(1) of the I.T. Act, then the same cannot be disallowed under section 36(1)(va) read with 2(24)(x) of the I.T. Act. However, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Unifac Management Service Page 4 of 23 (India

SRI SAINATH ASSOCIATES,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

depreciation on car and one-fifth on telephone expenses treating it as personal in nature - AO ha, never examined the details of such expenses before coming to the conclusion as to, whether any personal expenses are involved — Merely on estimate or on ad hoc no disallowance can be made - CIT (A) was justified in deleting the disallowance.” , HUGHES ESCORTS COMMUNICATIONS

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. M/S ROHIT SURFACTANTS PVT. LTD., KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

139(1) read with conditions laid down under section 80AC. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the relief Rs.14,20,72,292/- on account of deduction U/s 8018 & 801C without appreciating the fact that the assessee did not fulfill the condition as laid down for claiming deduction in terms

ACIT, CIRCLE 3, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. ANSHUMAN SINGH, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year):\n\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

SARJOO PRASAD RAJPAT,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(4), KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2009-10 M/S Sarjoo Prasad Rajpat Vs. Ito-1(1)(4), 55/15, Kahoo Kothi, Kanpur 16/69/ Kanpur Pan:Aaffs5661Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Pradeep Kumar Sahgal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Deepak Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.07.2025 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(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.03.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 154 Passed By The Ld. Ao On 25.04.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Order In Appeal Passed By The Ld Cit(A), Nfac Is Bad In Law & Facts & Deserves To Be Quashed By Allowing The Appeal. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Has Erred In Law & In Facts, In Upholding The Order Of Ld. Ao In Rejecting The Application Made Under Section 154 Of The Act. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Of The Appellant, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Rejecting Contention Of Appellant For Rectification Of Mistake U/S 154 Of The Act On The Ground That Appellant Ought To Have Filed Revised Return Of Income Within Due Date If There Was Any Mistake In Filing Of Original Return Of Income. The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Ought To Have Appreciated That Ao Is Bound To Compute Correct Income As Per Provisions Of The Act & Tax Cannot Be Levied At Higher Amount Due To Error Made While Filing Return Of Income.

139(5) and because of the failure to do so, its application could not be entertained. The ld. AO also held that the application under section 154 was barred by limitation as return had been processed on 31.12.2010 by the CPC and therefore, the application received on 3.10.2017 was rejected under section 154(8) of the Income

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

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfillment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S PRAG INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Videshri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 139(1) of the Act. 3. BECAUSE otherwise also, the issue was overwhelmingly covered in favour of the assessee, as per gist of case laws annexed as Enclosure - I(a) hereto and keeping in view, the salutary principle that view favourable to an assessee should be followed in case of conflict of judicial opinion, the ground taken

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

139(1) of the Act and as per rule 17 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, this option had to be exercised in Form No.9A. However, the assessee had failed to furnish Form 9A and therefore, the amount of Rs.18,18,45,925/- would not be treated as application of income and therefore, the exemption under section

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

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

139(1) of the Act and as per\nrule 17 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, this option had to be exercised in Form\nNo.9A. However, the assessee had failed to furnish Form 9A and therefore, the\namount of Rs.18,18,45,925/- would not be treated as application of income and\ntherefore, the exemption under section

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

139-146 of the\npaper book. In the said order sheet notings, the response filed by the\nassessee on various dates stated supra were duly noted and\nacknowledged by the Id. AO. Even the notices issued u/s.133(6) of the\nAct to various parties, replies received from them were also acknowledged\nby the Id.AO in the said order sheet noting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT\nAND\nSHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)

depreciation shall be allowed on the cost of the Asset that is not\nmet by the Assessee. the impact of the aforesaid amendment would be that\nprinciple laid down by the Apex Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. (1997)\n228 ITR 253 (SC) and Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC)\nlaying down the 'purpose test

UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

depreciation shall be allowed on the cost of the Asset that is not\nmet by the Assessee. the impact of the aforesaid amendment would be that\nprinciple laid down by the Apex Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. (1997)\n228 ITR 253 (SC) and Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC)\nlaving down the 'purpose test

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

139 of the Income Tax Act on 29.09.2013 declaring the Total Loss of Rs. 3,06,71,691/ The case was selected in scrutiny the assessment u/s 143(3) was completed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-VI, Lucknow on 11.02.2016 on total income of Rs. 10,45,71,123/- by making certain additions. 4. Later

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

139 of the Income Tax\nAct on 29.09.2013 declaring the Total Loss of Rs.3,06,71,691/- The case was\nselected in scrutiny the assessment u/s 143(3) was completed by the Deputy\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Range-VI, Lucknow on 11.02.2016 on total income\nof Rs.10,45,71,123/- by making certain additions.\n4. Later on, the case

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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there is no parameter that