DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. COMMERCIAL ENGINEERS & BODY BUILDERS CO. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

depreciation, without appreciating the facts that the provisions as contained under section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are squarely

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. COMMERCIAL ENGINEERS & BODY BUILDERS CO. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

depreciation, without appreciating the facts that the provisions as contained under section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are squarely

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 is claimed may not be business assets. In all such cases, section 32 of the Act providing for depreciation

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

32 to 38, which provisions contained in the non obstante clause beginning section 40, attract disallowability to deductions in these provisions, on which tax is deductible and no TDS has been made by the assessee. Then, as settled in ‘M/s Teja Construction vs. ACIT’ (supra), all the expenditure, which represents direct costs and, hence, is adjustable against the revenue

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

32 to 38, which provisions contained in the non obstante clause beginning section 40, attract disallowability to deductions in these provisions, on which tax is deductible and no TDS has been made by the assessee. Then, as settled in ‘M/s Teja Construction vs. ACIT’ (supra), all the expenditure, which represents direct costs and, hence, is adjustable against the revenue

ACIT (E), LUCKNOW vs. SHIV RAM DAS GULITI MEMORIAL SOCIETY, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit (Exemptions) Shiv Ram Das Gulati V. T. C. 46V, 5Th Floor, U.P.S.I.D.C Memorial Society Ltd, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti 53, Leader Road, Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Allahabad, Up Pan:Aabts4990G (Appellant) (Respondent) C. O. No. 05/Lkw/2022 (In Arising Out Of Ita. No. 09/Lkw/2020) Assessment Year:. 2014-15 Shiv Ram Das Gulati V. Acit (Exemptions) Memorial Society T. C. 46V, 5Th Floor, 53, Leader Road, Allahabad, U.P.S.I.D.C Ltd, Vibhuti Up. Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aabts4990G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Manish Kumar Deorah, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13 08 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 08 2024 O R D E R

32,796/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer towards the depreciation claimed by the assessee/cross objector during the year under consideration was completely erroneous, as CO. No.05/LKW/2022 Page 4 of 5 the said issue stood in favour of the assessee/cross objector as per the first appellate orders passed by the appellate authority in the appeal of the earlier years

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. M/S ROHIT SURFACTANTS PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

depreciation were claimed by the assessee do not fall in category of plant and Machinery as per provisions of Section 32

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR vs. COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-5, Kanpur 84/105, Kailash Motors Building, G.T. Road, Afim Kothi, Kanpur-208003 Pan: Aaccc4267E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (A)- 2, Kanpur Dated 25.09.2017, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y. 2006-07 On 23.12.2008. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 5,32,366/- U/S 14A Without Taken Into Consideration That The Expenditure Incurred In Relation To Exempt Income. 02. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 99,56,258/-Without Appreciating That The Provisions Of Sec. 50C Have Been Invoked By The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Stamp Valuation Of The Property. The Assessee Has Not Claimed Before The Assessing Office To Make The Reference To The Valuation Officer U/S 55A Of It Act, 1961. 3 That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 3,20,90,164/- On Account Of Loss Claimed On Sale Of Shares Without Appreciating That The Transaction As Claimed Were Sham & Was Incorporated Only To Evade The Capital Gain Earned On The Sale Of Properties. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Ignoring The Facts Noted By The Assessing Officer Regarding The Transaction Of Sale Of Shares.

depreciation on car Rs. 33,762/- v. Misc. expenses Rs. 1,75,498/- vi. Addition on account of late deposit of ESI under section 2(24)(X) r.w.s. 36(i)(va) Rs. 7,771/- vii. Addition under section 14A Rs. 5,32

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

32(1)(iia) of the Act, Learned A. R. submitted that assessee was entitled to additional depreciation as during earlier year the assessee was allowed only 50% of additional depreciation and balance 50% was to be allowed by Assessing Officer during the present year and which the Assessing Officer had not taken into consideration while calculating the taxable profits

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

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 is sold though auction. \nFurthermore, the disposal of residential properties is done by an Authority as per \nthe

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

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 is sold though auction. \nFurthermore, the disposal of residential properties is done by an Authority as per \nthe

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

Depreciation is decrease, decline, diminishing or reduction or shrinkage in the value of assets due to either usage or normal ware tare or efflux of time etc. The section 32

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

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

M/S GULATI EXTRUSIONS PVT. LTD,KANPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Gulati Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit 17-A, Co-Operative Industrial Circle 2(1)(1) Estate Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaacg5008M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1.3.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of Five Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Director Of The Assessee Company Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Stating Therein That The Papers Required For Filing The Appeal Was Sent Through Speed Post On 27.4.2021 Well Within The Limitation Period, However The Same Was Delivered By The Postal Authorities In The Office Of The Tribunal On 5.5.2021. It Was Further Stated That Since The Nominal Delay Of Five Days Was Due To Late Delivery Of The Dak By The Postal Authorities, The Delay May Be Condoned & The Appeal Be Admitted For Hearing. Having Carefully Perused The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That There Was Sufficient Cause For The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. Accordingly, The Delay Of 5 Days Is Condoned & Admit This Appeal For Hearing.

Sections 32-37, on the other hand, deal primarily with business, commercial or professional expenditure, under various heads (including depreciation

KWALITY RESTAURANT,KANPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 Kwality Restaurant V. The Cit(A) 16/97, The Mall Delhi Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaafk8712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.9.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 115 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Which Is Also Supported By An Affidavit. 3. I Have Gone Through The Application For Condonation Of Delay As Well As The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee & Heard The Contention Of The Ld. D.R. On The Issue Of Condonation Of Delay. The Ld. D.R. Has Objected To The Condonatiion Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Is Shifting The Blame Of Delay On Its Counsel. 4. Having Considered The Reasons Explained By The Assessee In The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That The Assessee Has Explained The Cause Of Delay That Due To An Oversight Of The Counsel Of The Assessee, Necessary Steps For Filing

Sections 32-37, on the other hand, deal primarily with business, commercial or professional expenditure, under various heads (including depreciation

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

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