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

253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the Cross Objection; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the Cross Objection for hearing. The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation

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

253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the Cross Objection; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the Cross Objection for hearing. The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation

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

253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the Cross Objection; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the Cross Objection for hearing. The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation

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

253(3) of IT Act. The \nassessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the \nCross Objection; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the \ncontrol of the assessee and has requested to admit the Cross Objection for \nhearing. The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue did not \nexpress any objection to assessee’s application for condonation

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

section 253(3) of IT Act. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned. Being satisfied with the reasons stated in application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal; we condone the delay in filing

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

depreciation on leasehold right in land and building was not\nallowable as per section 43B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The order\nwas revised and cancelled by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the\nAct on the ground that the expenses claimed for the creation of brand\nwere capital expenditure for creating an intangible asset. On appeal by\nthe

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

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

MADKINI HYDRO POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 4(3), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2018-19 Madkini Hydro Power Private V. The Income Tax Officer 4(3) Limited Lucknow Flat No.4, Ii Floor 3, Scindia House Delhi 110 001 Tan/Pan:Aaecm1420B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalendera Kishore Singh, Adv. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

depreciation". The Assessing Officer (AO) issued statutory notices to the assessee. However, there was no response from the side of the assessee. On examination of the return of income filed by the assessee, the AO noticed that during the year under consideration, the assessee had shown an amount of Rs.12,31,00,000/- as total Long Term Borrowings and Rs.2

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

In the result, appeals vide I

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

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

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

Section 43(1) of the Act, in case if any\nsubsidy is received towards acquisition of asset, then the amount of the subsidy\nshall be reduced from the total cost of the Asset, while determining the actual cost\nof such asset, for the purpose of calculating depreciation u/s 32 of the Act to\nensure that no depreciation shall be allowed

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)

Section 43(1) of the Act, in case if any\nsubsidy is received towards acquisition of asset, then the amount of the subsidy\nshall be reduced from the total cost of the Asset, while determining the actual cost\nof such asset, for the purpose of calculating depreciation u/s 32 of the Act to\nensure that no depreciation shall be allowed

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUCKNOW, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW vs. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., VIBHUTI KHAND GOMTI NAGAR LKO

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 80-IA of the Act.” (C.1.1) As the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. (supra), the Assessing Officer is directed to allow deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of interest earned by the assessee from FDR kept for release

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 80-IA of the Act.” (C.1.1) As the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. (supra), the Assessing Officer is directed to allow deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of interest earned by the assessee from FDR kept for release

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 80-IA of the Act.” (C.1.1) As the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. (supra), the Assessing Officer is directed to allow deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of interest earned by the assessee from FDR kept for release

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

253 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before Hon'ble Tribunal against the impugned order. 3. That various grounds taken by department does not arise out of the impugned order. The appeal by the department is wrong and liable to be dismissed as not maintainable 4. That the Ld. A.O. is wrong in not appreciating the fact that

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

253 CTR (SC) 305 wherein the reopening beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year is held to be invalid by Hon’ble Supreme Court: Conclusion : Assessee having disclosed full details of its dealings in stocks and shares in its return while claiming that the loss incurred by it was a business loss, reopening of the assessment

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

253 CTR (SC) 305 wherein the reopening beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year is held to be invalid by Hon’ble Supreme Court: Conclusion : Assessee having disclosed full details of its dealings in stocks and shares in its return while claiming that the loss incurred by it was a business loss, reopening of the assessment