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.

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) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2018] 100 taxmann.com 244. There were divergent views of the Hon'ble High Courts on this

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

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

24) \"income\" includes-\n(xviii) assistance in the form of a subsidy or grant or cash incentive or\nduly drawback or waiver or concession or reimbursement (by whatever\nname called) by the Central Government or a State Government or any\nauthority or body or agency in cash or kind to the assessee (other than,-\n(a) the subsidy or grant

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)

24) \"income\" includes-\n\n(xviii) assistance in the form of a subsidy or grant or cash incentive or\nduly drawback or waiver or concession or reimbursement (by whatever\nname called) by the Central Government or a State Government or any\nauthority or body or agency in cash or kind to the assessee (other than,-\n\n(a) the subsidy

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 - Held,\nyes [Para 7] [In favour of assessee]\"\n6.9.5The appellant has placed its reliance in the case of Assistant\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 Nashikv. M/S. JaoraNayagaon\nToll Road Co. Pvt Ltd, inITANos.379&380/PUN/2016 whereby the\nHon'blelTAT 'B' BENCH, Pune vide order dated November 29, 2017 has\nheld:-\n\"10. Further, the Tribunal in the case

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

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 11 of the Act was to be allowed and the additions were to be deleted. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the ITAT Lucknow Bench also went on to hold that the assessee was also entitled to benefit of depreciation in assessment year 2013-14. ITA No.360, 361 & 362/LKW/2020 Page 13 of 24

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

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 11 of the Act was to be allowed and the additions were to be deleted. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the ITAT Lucknow Bench also went on to hold that the assessee was also entitled to benefit of depreciation in assessment year 2013-14. ITA No.360, 361 & 362/LKW/2020 Page 13 of 24

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

24)(x) r.w.s.36(1)(va) despite the\nfact that, as per the grounds of appeal reproduced in his appeal order, the same was\nnot a ground of appeal that was preferred in the said appeal. With regard to the\naddition of Rs.21,60,433/- on the being fall in the value of securities, the assessee\nsubmitted before

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

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

depreciation claimed of Rs.31,53,656/- as per the provisions of section 11(6). The \nissues of rental income and violation of section 13(3) were also raised in the assessment for the \n assessment year 2017-18. \n15. Aggrieved by the rejection of its claim for exemption in all these assessment orders, the \nassessee went in appeal

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

depreciation claimed of Rs.31,53,656/- as per the provisions of section 11(6). The \nissues of rental income and violation of section 13(3) were also raised in the assessment for the \n assessment year 2017-18. \n15. Aggrieved by the rejection of its claim for exemption in all these assessment orders, the \nassessee went in appeal

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

depreciation claimed of Rs.31,53,656/- as per the provisions of section 11(6). The \nissues of rental income and violation of section 13(3) were also raised in the assessment for the \n assessment year 2017-18.\n15. Aggrieved by the rejection of its claim for exemption in all these assessment orders, the \nassessee went in appeal

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

M/S K.M.GASES PVT.LTD.(NOW K.M.VYAPAR PVT.LTD),KANPUR vs. DY. CIT-VI, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S K.M. Gases Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit-Vi (Now Known As K.M. Vyapar Pvt. Ltd.) Kanpur 11, Moti Bhawan, 52/1, Collectorgant Kanpur (U.P) Tan/Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

24 of the Act at Rs.24,60,715/-, Repair & Maintenance charges at Rs.9,68,213/- and also shown profit of Rs.23,06,932/- on sale of investment for separate consideration. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the AO that the assessee was a company with four main objects which as per Memorandum of Association

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

depreciation of Rs. 65,45,834/- in accordance with the provisions of section 11(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, after these disallowances, the total income of the assessee was computed at Rs. 1,70,77,516/-. 3. The assessee went in appeal to the ld. CIT(A), Varanasi. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

depreciation claimed of Rs. 31,53,656/- as per the provisions of section 11(6). The issues of rental income and violation of section 13(3) were also raised in the assessment for the assessment year 2017-18. 15. Aggrieved by the rejection of its claim for exemption in all these assessment orders, the assessee went in appeal

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.

depreciation on car Rs. 33,762/- v. Misc. expenses Rs. 1,75,498/- vi. Addition on account of late deposit of ESI under section 2(24

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has\nbeen computed;]\n\n[(d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity)\nlocated outside India.]\n\n[Explanation 3.-For the purpose of assessment or reassessment1 under this section,\nthe Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY. CIT, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Depreciation on Investments\" and same is verifiable from the Records.\nHowever, it is not claimed in the Return, though submissions were filed before Ld.\nC.I.T. (A), NFAC vide e-filing acknowledgement no. 20012113861664 dated\n20.01.2021.\n(4)That the case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz (India) Limited Vs. C.I.T.\nreported in 284 ITR 323 is not applicable

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT, LUCKNOW

Depreciation on Investments\" and same is verifiable from the Records.\nHowever, it is not claimed in the Return, though submissions were filed before Ld.\nC.I.T. (A), NFAC vide e-filing acknowledgement no. 20012113861664 dated\n20.01.2021.\n(4)That the case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz (India) Limited Vs. C.I.T.\nreported in 284 ITR 323 is not applicable