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:-

40(a)(ia) read with section 194C of the I.T. Act is applicable in case of carrying out any work including supply of labour for carrying out any work. 3. The CIT(A), Lucknow, has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.11,31,25,121/- without appreciating the fact that the credit balance in clients

JCIT(OSD), CC-1, LKO, LUCKNOW vs. ACP TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

40,48,933/- and\nunabsorbed depreciation of Rs.9,04,06,13,621/- as per\napplicable law of the Act claimed in ITR in relevant year not\nallowed by AO.”\n(A.2) For the sake of convenience, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the\nCross Objection filed by the assessee are hereby disposed of through this\nconsolidated order

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

40- 43B, are concerned with and Page 5 of 26 enact different conditions, that the tax adjudicator has to enforce, and the assessee has to comply with, to secure a valid deduction. 32. The scheme of the provisions relating to deductions, such as Sections 32-37, on the other hand, deal primarily with business, commercial or professional expenditure, under various

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

40,000/-The benefit of employee is consistently given and never there was any objection raised by the department. Regarding loss on sale of fixed assets Rs.8,83,439/- the matter is explained in the final accounts including the particulars of assets and claim of depreciation as shown in the audit report. The contention that the AO should have made

M/S. MERCURY INDUSTRIES LTD.,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2014-15

40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made if it is established that the recipient has recorded the same as income in their books of account and has paid taxes thereon and for its verification the matter has to be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. We accordingly set aside the order

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

40,871/- and in assessment year 2014-15, disallowance of depreciation was of Rs.3,98,441/-. 2.5 In both the years, i.e. assessment years 2011-12 and 2014-15, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld. CIT(A) against the orders of the AO challenging the initiation of re- assessment proceedings as well as challenging the additions/disallowances on merits. However

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

40,871/- and in assessment year 2014-15, disallowance of depreciation was of Rs.3,98,441/-. 2.5 In both the years, i.e. assessment years 2011-12 and 2014-15, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld. CIT(A) against the orders of the AO challenging the initiation of re- assessment proceedings as well as challenging the additions/disallowances on merits. However

AJAY ARORA,KANPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, KANPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora

section 40(a)(i) is the disallowance ofan expenditure claimed in computing the same. This is a classical example of the limitations in importing one person’s income, through a deeming provision, as of another, due to non-compliance of withholding tax provisions, which provisions could even otherwise be pursued to their logical end, recovering the tax, along with interest

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

40,871/- and in assessment year 2014-15, disallowance of depreciation was of Rs.3,98,441/-. 2.5 In both the years, i.e. assessment years 2011-12 and 2014-15, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld. CIT(A) against the orders of the AO challenging the initiation of re- assessment proceedings as well as challenging the additions/disallowances on merits. However

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.

40- 43B, are concerned with and enact different conditions, that the tax adjudicator has to enforce, and the assessee has to comply with, to secure a valid deduction. 32. The scheme of the provisions relating to deductions, such as Sections 32-37, on the other hand, deal primarily with business, commercial or professional expenditure, under various heads (including depreciation

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

40,916/- against the returned income of Rs.7,03,35,900/- by sustaining addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (herein referred to as the Ld. AO) against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT (A), has erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld. A. O. amounting to Rs.3,03,032/- on account

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

40,105/- made by applying the provisions of section \n11(6) of Income-tax Act when more than 85% of income was utilized without considering \nthe depreciation

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

depreciation on leasehold right in land and building was not\nallowable as per section 43B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The order\nwas revised and cancelled by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the\nAct on the ground that the expenses claimed for the creation of brand\nwere capital expenditure for creating an intangible asset. On appeal by\nthe

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

depreciation was allowable to it. In support of her arguments, the ld. AR also filed a detailed written submission prepared by Sh. Mradul Agarwal CA, which is reproduced as under: - Allowability of Exemption u/s 11 of Income-tax Act The Uttar Pradesh State Government vide section 3 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Development and Planning Act, 1973 enacted various Development Authorities

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

40% to \n50% of such area is saleable area and out of the saleable area for residential \nproperties, about 10%-10% of the area has to be set aside for EWS and LIG \nproperties. Only 5% area of saleable area is allocated for commercial properties. \nBesides these, provisions are made for economically weaker section of society for \ncommercial area

A P S ACADEMY,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-IV(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoorassessment Year 2008-09 M/S A.P.S. Academy, The Income Tax Officer, 239, Leela Building, Vs. Ward –Iv(I), Senani Vihar, Lucknow Raibareilly Road, Lucknow Pan – Aaata 7665H (Appellant) (Respondent)

40(a)(ia) of the Act, whereas the matter in the 154 proceedings related to depreciation on software development. The provisions of Section

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

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

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

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

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 which has to be calculated on the basis of facts and figures regarding the WDV and additions. This ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 12. Now coming to the last ground of appeal which is with respect to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. We find that Assessing Officer has made the disallowance by holding as under