M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

5) cannot be pressed into service for reading a limitation of the deduction under sub-section (1) only to ‘business income’. An attempt was made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue to rely on the phrase ‘derived … from’ in Section 80-IA (1) of the Act in respect of his submission that the intention of the legislature

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

5) cannot be pressed into service for reading a limitation of the\ndeduction under sub-section (1) only to 'business income'. An attempt\nwas made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue to rely on\nthe phrase 'derived ... from' in Section 80-IA (1) of the Act in respect\nof his submission that the intention of the legislature

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

In the result, appeals vide I

5) cannot be pressed into service for reading a limitation of the\ndeduction under sub-section (1) only to 'business income'. An attempt\nwas made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue to rely on\nthe phrase 'derived ... from' in Section 80-IA (1) of the Act in respect\nof his submission that the intention of the legislature

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

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

21. In the present case, admittedly, the assessment had been made under section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year Page 40 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 2000-01. It is also admitted that the reassessment proceedings initiated for the assessment year 2000-01 was after the expiry of four years from

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

21. In the present case, admittedly, the assessment had been made under section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year Page 40 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 2000-01. It is also admitted that the reassessment proceedings initiated for the assessment year 2000-01 was after the expiry of four years from

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

depreciation on such assets. The ld. AR, thereafter invited our attention to para 10.8.01 of the ld. CIT(A’s) order on the issue of cash deposit. It was pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) had come to a completely erroneous conclusion that the cash deposits were made out of capitation fees or that they were unexplained

SMT.SATYAWATI MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,FAIZABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: N.A. Smt. Satyawati Memorial Educational V. The Cit (Exemption) & Charitable Trust Lucknow Satyawati Sadan, 4/4/326 Khaswaspura, Ayodhya Road Faizabad Tan/Pan:Aajts7143K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Sheela Chopra, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 08 2022 O R D E R

depreciation shown at Rs.15,67,099/-; and (5) that under the Third Proviso to Section 10(23C)(vi) of the I.T. Act , surplus, if any, cannot either be diverted for any other use or purpose, or be diverted to be used for any other object, which requirement has not been made in the case of the assessee

DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. PRAYAGRAJ POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD.,, NOIDA

In the result, ground no. 1 of appeal is dismissed and ground no

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

depreciation is nil; or (iv) [***] to (vi) (vii) the amount of profits of sick industrial company for the assessment year commencing on and from the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the said company has become a sick industrial company under sub- section (1) of section 17 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

21 05 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This bunch of four appeals by the assessee against the different orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred as to “the Ld. CIT(A)”], pertaining to the A.Ys. 2012-13, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18. The facts in the grounds raised

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

21 05 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This bunch of four appeals by the assessee against the different orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred as to “the Ld. CIT(A)”], pertaining to the A.Ys. 2012-13, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18. The facts in the grounds raised

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-APPEAL, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

21 05 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This bunch of four appeals by the assessee against the different orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred as to “the Ld. CIT(A)”], pertaining to the A.Ys. 2012-13, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18. The facts in the grounds raised

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

21 05 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This bunch of four appeals by the assessee against the different orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred as to “the Ld. CIT(A)”], pertaining to the A.Ys. 2012-13, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18. The facts in the grounds raised

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

5 of 26 enact different conditions, that the tax adjudicator has to enforce, and the assessee has to comply with, to secure a valid deduction. 32. The scheme of the provisions relating to deductions, such as Sections 32-37, on the other hand, deal primarily with business, commercial or professional expenditure, under various heads (including depreciation). Each of these deductions

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

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

21\nmonths from the end of relevant financial year i.e. the\nassessment ought to have been completed on 31.12.2006. It is\nstated that a writ petition was filed before the Hon'ble\nJurisdictional High Court on (around) 15.11.2006 and the\nHon'ble Court was pleased to grant stay on 23.11.2006.\nThereafter, on 19.05.2014, the stay was vacated

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

5. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT issued a show cause notice dated 30.11.2017 under Section 263, alleging that the order passed by the AO was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In response, the appellant filed detailed objections, which were not appropriately considered. The Ld. PCIT passed the impugned order setting aside

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.

5 of 23 which apply with respect to certain deductions which are otherwise allowed in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability etc. If we consider this scheme, Sections 40- 43B, are concerned with and enact different conditions, that the tax adjudicator has to enforce, and the assessee has to comply with, to secure a valid deduction. 32. The scheme

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD., 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