RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-APPEAL, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 2(15) of the Act as amended w.e.f. 01.04.2016 made an addition of business profit at Rs.3,32,79,731/-. Further, the Assessing Authority disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.43,28,224/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the income of Rs.3,76,07,955/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 2(15) of the Act as amended w.e.f. 01.04.2016 made an addition of business profit at Rs.3,32,79,731/-. Further, the Assessing Authority disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.43,28,224/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the income of Rs.3,76,07,955/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 2(15) of the Act as amended w.e.f. 01.04.2016 made an addition of business profit at Rs.3,32,79,731/-. Further, the Assessing Authority disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.43,28,224/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the income of Rs.3,76,07,955/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before

ACIT, CIRCLE 3, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. ANSHUMAN SINGH, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

4) or sub section(5) of that section or\n\nb. fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub-section (1) of sec.142 (or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of that section) or\n\nc. having made a return, fails to comply with all the terms of a notice

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

4,03,640/- as income under head Business & Profession. 9. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in wrongly confirming the addition of 29,40,105/- made by applying the provisions of section 11(6) of Income-tax Act when more than 85% of income was utilized without considering the depreciation

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

4 of the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973 and as per section 58, the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973, the State \nGovernment was empowered to dissolve the development authority. Furthermore, State \nGovernment had the power to call for records of the authority under section 41, approve the \nbudget under section 20, make the Rules under section 55 etc. Thus, from the above, it was clear \nthat

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

4 of the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973 and as per section 58, the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973, the State \nGovernment was empowered to dissolve the development authority. Furthermore, State \nGovernment had the power to call for records of the authority under section 41, approve the \nbudget under section 20, make the Rules under section 55 etc. Thus, from the above, it was clear \nthat

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

4 of the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973 and as per section 58, the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973, the State \nGovernment was empowered to dissolve the development authority. Furthermore, State \nGovernment had the power to call for records of the authority under section 41, approve the \nbudget under section 20, make the Rules under section 55 etc. Thus, from the above, it was clear \nthat

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. 5,32,366/- Thus, addition of this amount was added to the net profit of Rs. 4

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

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

depreciation as per Income Tax Act, 1961, the\neligible profits of the eligible unit were thus reduced by an amount of\nRs.53,19,146/-a\nThe assessee was also required to specify the nature of other income'\ncredited to the P&L account of the eligible units and also to justify the claim u/s\n801A(4) w.r.t. such other income

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

In the result, appeals vide I

depreciation as per Income Tax Act, 1961, the\neligible profits of the eligible unit were thus reduced by an amount of\nRs.53,19,146/-a\n\nThe assessee was also required to specify the nature of other income'\ncredited to the P&L account of the eligible units and also to justify the claim u/s\n801A(4) w.r.t. such other

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

4), i.e., from the Assessee’s business unit involved in generation of power. The claim of the Assessee is that in computing its ‘total income’, deductions available to it have to be set-off against the ‘gross total income’, while the Revenue contends that it is only the ‘business income’ which has to be taken into account for the purpose

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

4), i.e., from the Assessee’s business unit involved in generation of power. The claim of the Assessee is that in computing its ‘total income’, deductions available to it have to be set-off against the ‘gross total income’, while the Revenue contends that it is only the ‘business income’ which has to be taken into account for the purpose

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

4), i.e., from the Assessee’s business unit involved in generation of power. The claim of the Assessee is that in computing its ‘total income’, deductions available to it have to be set-off against the ‘gross total income’, while the Revenue contends that it is only the ‘business income’ which has to be taken into account for the purpose

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

4 June 2018 and Mr. Sodhani retracted his statement on 30 August 2018, Mr. JayeshZanani also retracted his statement on 2 April 2018. It is to be noted that at the time of issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act i.e. of 16 August 2018 all those persons who originally gave statement were mostly retracted. Subsequently, during

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

4 June 2018 and Mr. Sodhani retracted his statement on 30 August 2018, Mr. JayeshZanani also retracted his statement on 2 April 2018. It is to be noted that at the time of issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act i.e. of 16 August 2018 all those persons who originally gave statement were mostly retracted. Subsequently, during

KHANDELWAL SOYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,RAMPUR vs. ACIT(CENTERAL), BAREILLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the\nterms indicated hereinbefore

depreciation on the basis that during the\nappellate proceedings Bills & Vouchers pertaining to fixed assets\namounting to Rs.18,23,310/- were produced for verification.\nAggrieved by this, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.\n\n4. Apropos to the Ground Nos.2, 3 and 4 of the Ld. Counsel\nfor the assessee contended that the no addition was made