TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Technical Associates Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 8Th Km, Faizabad Road Tax Vijaypur, Gomti Nagar Range 6 Lucknow Lucknow Pan:Aabct7365F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Santhosh Kumar Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25 06 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 06 2024 O R D E R

250 of the Act, sustained the addition so made by the Assessing Officer. 9. So far as computation of capital gains in case of depreciable assets is concerned, the same is envisaged in section 50 of the Act, which reads as under: “[Special provision for computation of capital gains in case of depreciable assets. Sec. 50: Notwithstanding anything contained

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the A.Ys. 2017-18 and 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

BRIGHT LAND COLLEGE,,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Bright Land College, Vs. Income Tax Officer 538A / 543/5, Triveni Nagar (Exemption), Lucknow, The Sitapur Road, Lucknow Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Pan:Aaatb4391F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed On 17.10.2022 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order, Which Is Unlawful, Unjustified & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order Without Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding Ad Hoc Disallowance Of Expense Of Rs. 1,54,57,795/- Against The Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of Income-Tax Act Without Following The Procedure Laid Down In Sub-Section (1) Of Section 143 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961. 4. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Granting Exemption U/S 11 & 12 Of The I. T. Act, 1961. 1 Bright Land College A.Y. 2013-14

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The grounds of appeal preferred by the assessee are as under:- “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order, which is unlawful, unjustified and against the principles of natural justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred

ITO-6(1), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,, LUCKNOW

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.261/Lkw/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1), Lucknow . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

250 of the Income Tax Act [in brief ‘the Act’] by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-2, Lucknow [in brief ‘CIT(A)’] which in turn unbuttoned order of rectification dt. 29/03/2014 passed u/s 154 of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Lucknow [in brief ‘AO’] 2. The case was called twice, none appeared

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.

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 and facts

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the A.Ys.2017-18 and 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:- ITA No.181/LKW/2024 “(1).That the Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

depreciation claimed or on capital expenditure or of prior period expenses, but would be making a disallowance of the unutilized amount of C.O. No. 20/LKW/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 M/s Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority tourism grant, which had not been taken into the income and expenditure account and accordingly, he made an addition of Rs. 4,19,46,586/-. 3. Aggrieved

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 24.05.2017 granting partial relief to the assessee against the order of the ld. AO under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.03.215. The grounds of appeal are as under: - “1.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in allowing relief of Rs.3

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BAREILLY vs. MS SHREE BHAWANI MILLS, SHAHJAHANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed while the Cross

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S Shree Bhawani Mills, Tax, Circle-1, Bareilly Gandhi Ganj, Shahjahanpur, U.P. Pan:Aadfs8573M (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.15/Lkw/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 M/S Shree Bhawani Mills, Gandhi Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Ganj, Shahjahanpur, U.P. Income Tax, Circle-1, Bareilly Pan:Aadfs8573M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act On 7.09.2023 Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao On 30.03.2022 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:-

250 of the Income Tax Act on 7.09.2023 allowing the appeal of the assessee against the order passed by the ld. AO on 30.03.2022 under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1 & CO No.15/LKW/2024 M/s Shree Bhawani Mills “The ld. CIT has erred in; (i). Law and on facts

M/S. BEE KAY PRECISION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-V, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoorassessment Year 2013-14

depreciation against property of Rs.4,08,067.00. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not providing proper opportunity to the appellant.” 2. By virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal for non prosecution, observing that notices dated 14.12.2017 and 09.01.2018 for compliance on 07.12.2017 and 17.01.2018 were served

ACIT CIRCLE 3, LUCKNOW vs. RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 112 To 114/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2015-16 To 2017-18 Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Vs. Dcit Bank Ltd P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. 226001. Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan:Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) A.Y.2016-17 Acit Circle-3 Vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh Ltd Kar Bhawan, Lucknow Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan: Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Addl. Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Four Appeals Have Been Have Been Filed For The Assessment Years 2015 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18 By The Assessee & Revenue Ssessee & Revenue Against The Respective Orders Of The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024. While The Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, The Revenue 18, The Revenue

6(2) in support of this preposition. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee but did not find the same to be acceptable. He said that sub-clause (2) of Section 14A clearly stated that if the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with ITA. No.141/LKW/2024 correctness of the claim of the assessee, he could determine the expenditure

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

6(2) in support of this preposition. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee but did not find the same to be acceptable. He said that sub-clause (2) of Section 14A clearly stated that if the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with 10 correctness of the claim of the assessee, he could determine the expenditure with

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

250 to 273 of submission. 2. The CIT(A), Lucknow has erred in ia\v and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.13,99,33.507/- on account of prior period without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not produced documentary evidence before A.O. that income corresponding to expenditure of Rs.13,99,33,507/- has already been recognized

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

250 to 273 of submission. 2. The CIT(A), Lucknow has erred in ia\v and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.13,99,33.507/- on account of prior period without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not produced documentary evidence before A.O. that income corresponding to expenditure of Rs.13,99,33,507/- has already been recognized

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

6. Copy of notice u/s 142(1) dated 16-12-2019 442-443 7. Copy of reply dated 19-12-2019 and 23-12-2019 against notice u/s 142(1) dated 16-12-2019 444-449 8. Copy of notice u/s 250 dated 27-8-2020 450-451 9. Copy of Submissions filed before CIT(Appeals) 452-476 (A.3) Written

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

250 dated 01.03.2023\npassed by CIT(A), NFAC.\nCopy of Form 35 dated 18.01.2020 filed\nbefore the CIT(A) against the original\nassessment order dated 15.12.2019\nCopy of\nNotice\nu/s\n142(1)\ndated\n01.12.2019\nCopy of\nNotice\nu/s\n142(1)\ndated\n06.12.2019\nCopy of\nNotice\nu/s\n142(1)\ndated\n14.09.2019\nCopy of Reply filed in response to notice\nu/s

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

250 dated 08.08.2024 vide DIN ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1067435183(1) profit was estimated at 7% after following observation:- 7.12 Considering the aforementioned discussion, case laws specially the judgment of Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Allahabad v. Target Construction Co. Ltd and the fact that depreciation of Rs. 14,99,267/- has already been disallowed

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

250 dated 08.08.2024 vide DIN ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1067435183(1) profit was estimated at 7% after following observation:- 7.12 Considering the aforementioned discussion, case laws specially the judgment of Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Allahabad v. Target Construction Co. Ltd and the fact that depreciation of Rs. 14,99,267/- has already been disallowed