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

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, in as much as the original assessment order dated 11-02-2016 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. That the Ld. PCIT was wrong in not passing an speaking order ignoring the submissions made by the assessee during proceeding u/s 263 rendering the order under appeal

U.P SAMAJ KALYAN NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS U.P STATE CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.),LUCKNOW vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, LUCKNOW

Section 263 proceedings, the\nappellant submitted a detailed, item-wise reply to the PCIT's show cause notice,\nwhich explained all the above three issues clearly.\nThe matter relating to expenses for prior period Rs.46,29,470/ was with the Ld.\nAO as per the details submitted during assessment proceedings. Further, this\nmatter had been examined in earlier years

GURU KRIPA ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PR. CIT, , BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

section 263 of I.T. Act, the Pr.CIT\ntook the view that (instead of depreciation) the assessee was eligible (only)\nfor

PRECIOUS BJUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, , BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.66/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Precious Buildtech Pvt Ltd V. Pcit Harmony Apartment, Adiacent Income Tax Department, To Bedi International School, Bareilly-243001. Dental College Road, Pilibhit Bypass Road, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aagcp1255R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Mazhar Akram, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 09 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

Section 263 of the Act. In the context of the present case if, as urged by the Revenue, the Assessee has wrongly claimed depreciation

GENUS POWER INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITTED,NOIDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTERAL), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

263 ITR437 (P&H); Malabar Industrial Co.\nLtd. vs.CIT,243 ITR 83(S.C.); CIT vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (P)\nLtd. 331 ITR 192 (Del.); CIT vs. International Travel House Lid. 194\nТахтап 324; CIT vs. DLF Power Limited 329 ITR 289 (Del.); CIT vs. Eicher\nLimited 294 ITR 310 (Del.) CIT vs. Ashish Rajput

NAVUDAI SHIKSHAN AND JAN KALYAN SEWA SAMITI,KANPUR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Navudai Shikshan & Jan Kalyan Sewa Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Samiti, 117/K/30, Sarvodaya Nagar, Tax (Exemption), Lucknow Kanpur-208005 Pan: Aagfn4916N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2025 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 (Exemption), Lucknow Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 30.03.2021 Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act For The A.Y. 2016-17 On 15.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Order Passed By Cit(E) U/S 263 Of The Act Dt. 30.03.2021 Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Be Quashed. 02. Because The Order Passed By Ao, Being Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue The Action Of The Cit(E) Set-Asiding The Said Order Is Without Jurisdiction, Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, Be Quashed. 03. Because The Order Passed By The Ao Being Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue, The Cit(E) Has Erred In Law In Setting Aside The Same, The Order Passed By Cit(E) Be Quashed & That As Passed By The Ao Be Restored. 04. Because The Cit(E) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Initial Assessment Was A Deep Scrutiny Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) Wherein Voluminous Queries Were Raised Which Were Complied With & Thoroughly Examined/ Verified By The Ao, The Necessary Enquiring Having Being Done, It Is Neither A Case Of No Inquiring Or Lack Of Enquiring, As Such The Cit(E) Has Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order, The Order Passed By Cit(E) Be Quashed.

depreciation and advances made by the assessee to UPTU and Samaj Kalyan and with regard to others, the ld. CIT (Exemption) had observed that further enquiries were necessary to consider the submissions of the assessee which had not been done during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, he had invoked the provisions of clause (a) of explanation 2 of section 263

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

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

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)

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 setting aside this assessment with a direction to make a fresh assessment. Accordingly, the case was taken up again for assessment. During the course of this second assessment, the ld. AO inter alia noticed that in the balance-sheet of the assessee, sundry creditors were reflected at Rs.3

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

263 (ITAT Delhi)]. \n5. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs \n14,01,930/- being the balance in 'infrastructure development fund account'. Ld. CIT(A) \nfailed to appreciate that the amount in the above statutory fund are specifically received by \nvirtue of Government Order dt. 15.01.1998 and are meant

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

263 (ITAT Delhi)].\n5. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs \n14,01,930/- being the balance in 'infrastructure development fund account'. Ld. CIT(A) \nfailed to appreciate that the amount in the above statutory fund are specifically received by \nvirtue of Government Order dt. 15.01.1998 and are meant

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

263 (ITAT Delhi)]. \n5. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs \n14,01,930/- being the balance in 'infrastructure development fund account'. Ld. CIT(A) \nfailed to appreciate that the amount in the above statutory fund are specifically received by \nvirtue of Government Order dt. 15.01.1998 and are meant

M/S U.P. STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraacit, Range-1 V. M/S. Up State Bridge Corporation Ltd Ashok Marg, Lucknow. 16, Madan Mohan Malviya Marg, Lucknow Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri B. P Yadav, Cost Acct Respondent By: Smt Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

Section 263 of the Act, where he has observed that the A.O. has not taxed the Exchange Variation Reserve (EVR) amounting to Rs. 2,00,62,003/- appearing on asset side in the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31.03.1990. Finally, on 28.03.2003, the CIT has set aside the assessment u/s 263. 4. Final assessment order was passed

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

263 (ITAT Delhi)]. 5. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 14,01,930/- being the balance in 'infrastructure development fund account'. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount in the above statutory fund are specifically received by virtue of Government Order dt. 15.01.1998 and are meant

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

U.P RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita Nos.161/Lkw/2019 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं/ Ita Nos.174/Lkw/2019 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 U.P Rajya Vidyut Utpadan V. Dcit, Range-Vi Nigam Ltd 3Rd Floor, 27/2, Raja Ram 7Th Floor, Shakti Bhawan Mohan Rai Marg, P. K. Extension 14, Ashok Marg, Complex, Lucknow- Lucknow-226001. 226001. Pan: Aaacu4749D अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.209/Lkw/2019 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Range-Vi V. U.P Rajya Vidyut 3Rd Floor, 27/2, Raja Ram Utpadan Nigam Ltd Mohan Rai Marg, P. K. 7Th Floor, Shakti Bhawan Complex, Lucknow-226001. Extension 14, Ashok Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aaacu4749D अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Sandeep Jain, C.A प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04 12 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 20 01 2026 Pronouncement:

depreciation on WDV is liable to be allowed in subsequent years also in view of Explanation 5 of section 32 of the income Tax Act, 1961. This is without prejudice to the assessee's ground in appeal for A.Y. 2004-05 in which the treatment of repairs and maintenance expenditure as capital expenditure has been contested. 5. Because the learned

U.P RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita Nos.161/Lkw/2019 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं/ Ita Nos.174/Lkw/2019 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 U.P Rajya Vidyut Utpadan V. Dcit, Range-Vi Nigam Ltd 3Rd Floor, 27/2, Raja Ram 7Th Floor, Shakti Bhawan Mohan Rai Marg, P. K. Extension 14, Ashok Marg, Complex, Lucknow- Lucknow-226001. 226001. Pan: Aaacu4749D अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.209/Lkw/2019 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Range-Vi V. U.P Rajya Vidyut 3Rd Floor, 27/2, Raja Ram Utpadan Nigam Ltd Mohan Rai Marg, P. K. 7Th Floor, Shakti Bhawan Complex, Lucknow-226001. Extension 14, Ashok Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aaacu4749D अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Sandeep Jain, C.A प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04 12 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 20 01 2026 Pronouncement:

depreciation on WDV is liable to be allowed in subsequent years also in view of Explanation 5 of section 32 of the income Tax Act, 1961. This is without prejudice to the assessee's ground in appeal for A.Y. 2004-05 in which the treatment of repairs and maintenance expenditure as capital expenditure has been contested. 5. Because the learned

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, LUCKNOW vs. U.P RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita Nos.161/Lkw/2019 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं/ Ita Nos.174/Lkw/2019 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 U.P Rajya Vidyut Utpadan V. Dcit, Range-Vi Nigam Ltd 3Rd Floor, 27/2, Raja Ram 7Th Floor, Shakti Bhawan Mohan Rai Marg, P. K. Extension 14, Ashok Marg, Complex, Lucknow- Lucknow-226001. 226001. Pan: Aaacu4749D अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.209/Lkw/2019 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Range-Vi V. U.P Rajya Vidyut 3Rd Floor, 27/2, Raja Ram Utpadan Nigam Ltd Mohan Rai Marg, P. K. 7Th Floor, Shakti Bhawan Complex, Lucknow-226001. Extension 14, Ashok Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aaacu4749D अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Sandeep Jain, C.A प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04 12 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 20 01 2026 Pronouncement:

depreciation on WDV is liable to be allowed in subsequent years also in view of Explanation 5 of section 32 of the income Tax Act, 1961. This is without prejudice to the assessee's ground in appeal for A.Y. 2004-05 in which the treatment of repairs and maintenance expenditure as capital expenditure has been contested. 5. Because the learned