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

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 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

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

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

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

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

5% area of saleable area is allocated for commercial properties. \nBesides these, provisions are made for economically weaker section of society for \ncommercial area as certain percentage has to be made available for local shops and \nshops for barber, vegetable vendor etc. which are disposed-off through lottery \nsystem. It is this leftover part from 5% of saleable area that

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

5% area of saleable area is allocated for commercial properties. \nBesides these, provisions are made for economically weaker section of society for \ncommercial area as certain percentage has to be made available for local shops and \nshops for barber, vegetable vendor etc. which are disposed-off through lottery \nsystem. It is this leftover part from 5% of saleable area that

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

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

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

5 The Tribunal has found that in the order passed by the PCIT,\nExplanation 2 of section 263 of the Act, 1961 is made applicable. The\nTribunal observed that the PCIT has not mentioned in the show cause\nnotice to invoke the Explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act 1961.\nTherefore, by invocation of Explanation in the order without

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

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

5. Coming to the facts of the case, it is seen that since the appellant is\nregistered under Section 12A of the Act and is claiming exemption under\nSection11, the attendant provisions and conditions squarely apply to the appellant\nand therefore recognition of income as well as application thereof ought to be\nstrictly interpreted as laid down

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)

5. Coming to the facts of the case, it is seen that since the appellant is\nregistered under Section 12A of the Act and is claiming exemption under\nSection11, the attendant provisions and conditions squarely apply to the appellant\nand therefore recognition of income as well as application thereof ought to be\nstrictly interpreted as laid down