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

Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Method of accounting - Estimation of income (GP rate) - Assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 - Assessee-company was carrying out contract of construction of roads awarded by Government - Due to various discrepancies in books of account, Assessing Officer rejected same and estimated profit at 10 per cent of gross receipts - Tribunal relying

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

section 32(1)(ii) read with Explanation 3(b) - Whether thus\nassessee would be eligible to claim depreciation on such asset at\nspecified rate Held, yes [Paras 11, 16 and 17] [In favour of\nassessee]\"\n6.9.4The appellant has placed its reliance in the case of Deputy\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Ashoka Dhankuni Kharagpur Tollway Ltd.,\nin [2022] 145

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BAREILLY vs. SHRI SACHIT KUMAR AGARWAL, BAREILLY

In the result, the impugned order of learned CIT(A) is sustained, and\nthe appeal is dismissed

145 - Firm carrying a business of\ncivil construction- Rejection of accounts found justified - Estimation\nof\nprofits- Turnover of 10 crores Provisions of section 44AD could not\nbe invoked- Increase in turnover as well as cost Income to be\ncomputed at marginally lower rate of net profit than last year\nDeduction\nfor\nsalary\nand interest to partners as also depreciation

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

section 29 and are deemed to have been taken\nconsideration while making such estimate.\"\n• Commissioner of Income-tax, Allahabad v. Target Construction Co.\nLtd.*[2015] 55 taxmann.com 294 (Allahabad)\nIT: Where in case of government contractor engaged in construction of roads\nbooks of account was rejected, Tribunal, relying upon profit rates of preceding\nthree years, was justified in estimating

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

depreciation as shown in the audit report. The contention that the AO should have made enquiry/verification on these items while passing the impugned order raises the question as to how these finding was arrived and basis for issuing notice u/s 263. However, in the impugned order, the Ld. PCIT has neither discussed nor rebutted the appellant's reply

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

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

145 of the Act, such expenditure of commission not relatable to the years under consideration, was not allowable and learned I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 7 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 CIT(A) has wrongly allowed the same and therefore, it was prayed that the order of the Assessing Officer be upheld on this

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

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

145 of the Act, such expenditure of commission not relatable to the years under consideration, was not allowable and learned I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 7 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 CIT(A) has wrongly allowed the same and therefore, it was prayed that the order of the Assessing Officer be upheld on this

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

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

145 of the Act, such expenditure of commission not relatable to the years under consideration, was not allowable and learned I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 7 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 CIT(A) has wrongly allowed the same and therefore, it was prayed that the order of the Assessing Officer be upheld on this

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

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

145 of the Act, such expenditure of commission not relatable to the years under consideration, was not allowable and learned I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 7 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 CIT(A) has wrongly allowed the same and therefore, it was prayed that the order of the Assessing Officer be upheld on this

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)

145(3) of the\nAct. The AO further submits that under Section 11 of the Act, only that part of the\namount which was actually utilized for the specified purposes under the relevant\ngovernment scheme can be claimed as application of income and therefore, the\nunutilized amount lying with the executing agencies as at the end of the year\ncannot

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

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

145(3) of the\nAct. The AO further submits that under Section 11 of the Act, only that part of the\namount which was actually utilized for the specified purposes under the relevant\ngovernment scheme can be claimed as application of income and therefore, the\nunutilized amount lying with the executing agencies as at the end of the year\ncannot

GURU KRIPA ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PR. CIT, , BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

145(3) of the Act. There is nothing\non record to indicate that any effort was made by the Assessing Officer to\nexamine whether the cash sales claimed by the assessee during\ndemonetization period were in conformity with the inventory available with\nthe assessee. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Assessing\nOfficer made any effort to make

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

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

145(2) of the Act, inter-alia, notified (on 29.09.2016) ICDS-III Page 8 of 16 (Income Computation & Disclosure Standard) relating to construction contracts. But the AO has not examined the case w.r.t. ICDS guidelines. (ii) The assessee company has shown advances from customers at Rs.18.20 crore during the year under consideration. The AO has not made any verification whether

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR, KANPUR vs. SHRI MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

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

145 of the Act, commission of exports sales is not an allowable expenditure on payments basis as the assessee is regularly following mercantile system of accounting. 2. The learned CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.8,18,00,000/- on account of bogus I.T.A. No.99/Lkw/2022 Assessment Year

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

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

section 145(3) of the Act and making the addition for the difference. I find that the position has been explained by the appellant both during the assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings that the figure of Rs. 58,72,11,589/- is a typographical error and correct value of closing stock as per books of accounts and verified