DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which is mentioned as under: "Meaning of service by post": Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression serve or either of the expressions give or send or any other expression is used, then

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR, KANPUR vs. SHRI MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 68 is that the assessee should file a valid confirmation. Valid confirmation has no specific format but it must contain name, complete address of the lender and PAN of the lender. The confirmation so filed must indicate complete details of transactions (like mode cash or cheque, with number date of cheque with bank details). The Assessing Officer have right

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

depreciation of Rs. 3,14,204/-. 4. That the Learned AO has erred in making disallowance on account of unsecured loan of Rs. 2,57,00,000/- 5. That the Ld. AO has erred in making disallowance on account of Commission of Rs, 12,85,000/-. 6. That the Ld. AO has erred in making disallowance on account of Charity

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

depreciation of Rs. 3,14,204/-. 4. That the Learned AO has erred in making disallowance on account of unsecured loan of Rs. 2,57,00,000/- 5. That the Ld. AO has erred in making disallowance on account of Commission of Rs, 12,85,000/-. 6. That the Ld. AO has erred in making disallowance on account of Charity

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

depreciation of Rs. 3,14,204/-. 4. That the Learned AO has erred in making disallowance on account of unsecured loan of Rs. 2,57,00,000/- 5. That the Ld. AO has erred in making disallowance on account of Commission of Rs, 12,85,000/-. 6. That the Ld. AO has erred in making disallowance on account of Charity

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

depreciation of Rs. 3,14,204/-. 4. That the Learned AO has erred in making disallowance on account of unsecured loan of Rs. 2,57,00,000/- 5. That the Ld. AO has erred in making disallowance on account of Commission of Rs, 12,85,000/-. 6. That the Ld. AO has erred in making disallowance on account of Charity

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

depreciation allowable is Rs.3,97,13,069/- and accordingly he disallowed a sum of Rs.3,03,032/-. The Assessing Officer further disallowed a sum of Rs.2,16,353/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, being the contribution received from the employees, as the same was deposited after the due date. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BAREILLY vs. M/S L.H SUGAR FACTORY PVT. LTD.,, PILIBHIT

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

depreciation for Rs.1,27,22,241/- under section-32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I.T.A. No.416/Lkw/2013 I.T.A

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

section 11 had been disallowed and the income had been taxed as income from business and profession as per commercial principles, the depreciation should have been allowed. However, because the cost of assets would have been allowed as application in earlier years therefore depreciation on the same could not be allowed. However, for the new assets added in the relevant

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

27,122/- as income \nunder head Business & Profession.\n8. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing \nassessment order which is contrary to the facts and law.\n9. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal or \nraise any new ground of appeal during the pendency

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

27,122/- as income \nunder head Business & Profession. \n8. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing \nassessment order which is contrary to the facts and law. \n9. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal or \nraise any new ground of appeal during the pendency

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S SHRI RAMSWAROOP CHARITABLE TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Y. 2013-14

depreciation on the written Dawn Value of the assets.” 19. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A), Ground No.2 is dismissed. 20. Now in Ground No.3, we find that assessee in total had accepted donation of Rs.16,18,36,650/-. During the assessment

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

depreciation will become available to the assessee. 3.2 With reference to assessment year 2011-12 in ITA No.361/LKW/2020, the Ld. A.R. submitted that in this year also, assessee’s case was reopened in terms of section 147 of the Act, but in this year also, assessee’s gross receipts were below Rs.1 crore. It was submitted that the gross receipts

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

depreciation will become available to the assessee. 3.2 With reference to assessment year 2011-12 in ITA No.361/LKW/2020, the Ld. A.R. submitted that in this year also, assessee’s case was reopened in terms of section 147 of the Act, but in this year also, assessee’s gross receipts were below Rs.1 crore. It was submitted that the gross receipts

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

27-8-2020 450-451 9. Copy of Submissions filed before CIT(Appeals) 452-476 (A.3) Written submissions were filed from Revenue side, relevant portion of which is reproduced as under: BEFORE THE HON'BLE.. MEMBERS INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A-BENCH, LUCKNOW In the case of Appeal No Assessment Year Date of Hearing M/s. APCO Infratech

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

In the result, appeals vide I

27-8-2020\n450-451\n9.\nCopy of Submissions filed before CIT(Appeals)\n452-476\n\n(A.3) Written submissions were filed from Revenue side, relevant portion of\nwhich is reproduced as under:\n\nBEFORE THE HON'BLE.. MEMBERS\nINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nA-BENCH, LUCKNOW\n\nIn the case of\nAppeal No\n Assessment Year\nDate of Hearing

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

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

depreciation shall be allowed on the cost of the Asset that is not\nmet by the Assessee. the impact of the aforesaid amendment would be that\nprinciple laid down by the Apex Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. (1997)\n228 ITR 253 (SC) and Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC)\nlaving down the 'purpose test

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)

depreciation shall be allowed on the cost of the Asset that is not\nmet by the Assessee. the impact of the aforesaid amendment would be that\nprinciple laid down by the Apex Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. (1997)\n228 ITR 253 (SC) and Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC)\nlaying down the 'purpose test

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there is no parameter that