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

THAKUR ROSHAN SINGH,BAREILLY vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Thakur Roshan Singh, Smirti Sansthan, Vs. Income Tax Officer Vill Chathiya Faizu, Shahpur, Baniyan (Exemption), Ward, Bareilly Faridpur, Bareilly Pan: Aabat8692F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl 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 Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 4.07.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 16.04.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Fact & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Made By Assessing Officer Rs. 60,20,000/- As Building Expenditure For Charitable Purposes, Arbitrarily Rejecting The Explanation Furnished By The Assessee. 2. Because, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Fact & In Law That Such College Is Being Constructed & Run In The Remote Village Where In Due To Various Exigencies & Not Availability Of The Banking Facilities, Payments Are Made In Cash. 3. Because, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Fact & In Law That The Payments Of Construction Had Made Not Being Rejected By The Ld. Ao. However, Due To Ongoing Work It Is A General Practice To Obtain Bills/Settlement Receipts Only On Finalization Of The Work, The Ld. Ao Has Arbitrarily Rejected The Same.

44,43,168/- was depreciation amounting to Rs. 8,52,719/-. The remaining expenditure was in the nature of salary expenses but the Assessing Officer observed that the salary details could not contain any PAN numbers. With regard to the remaining expenditure of Rs. 6,48,249/- with the assessee claimed to be for the business purposes of the trust

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT, LUCKNOW

44 of the P.B., were not\ncovered in under provisions of section 14A of the Act. It was further submitted that\nthe assessee had total interest fee fund of Rs.25,20,31,732/- and therefore, the\ninvestment made in non-SLR Investment of Rs.13,75,00,000/-, was entirely out of its\nown resources and therefore there was no reason

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

44 of the P.B., were not covered in under provisions of section 14A of the Act. It was further submitted that the assessee had total interest fee fund of Rs.25,20,31,732/- and therefore, the investment made in non-SLR Investment of Rs.13,75,00,000/-, was entirely out of its own resources and therefore there was no reason

ACIT CIRCLE 3, LUCKNOW vs. RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 112 To 114/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2015-16 To 2017-18 Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Vs. Dcit Bank Ltd P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. 226001. Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan:Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) A.Y.2016-17 Acit Circle-3 Vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh Ltd Kar Bhawan, Lucknow Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan: Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Addl. Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Four Appeals Have Been Have Been Filed For The Assessment Years 2015 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18 By The Assessee & Revenue Ssessee & Revenue Against The Respective Orders Of The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024. While The Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, The Revenue 18, The Revenue

44 of the P.B., were not covered in under provisions of section 14A of the Act. It was further submitted that the assessee had total interest fee fund of Rs.25,20,31,732/- and therefore, the investment made in non-SLR Investment of Rs.13,75,00,000/-, was entirely out of its own resources and therefore there was no reason

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY. CIT, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

44 of the P.B., were not\ncovered in under provisions of section 14A of the Act. It was further submitted that\nthe assessee had total interest fee fund of Rs.25,20,31,732/- and therefore, the\ninvestment made in non-SLR Investment of Rs.13,75,00,000/-, was entirely out of its\nown resources and therefore there was no reason

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

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfillment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

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.

44,965 19/06/2017 15/06/2017 EPF 2017 8. The assessee has not disputed the due date of payment and actual date of payment, which clearly shows that the payment was made by the assessee after due date of payment as prescribed under the Provident Fund Act. It is also not in dispute that the assessee made payment before due date

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has\nbeen computed;]\n\n[(d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity)\nlocated outside India.]\n\n[Explanation 3.-For the purpose of assessment or reassessment1 under this section,\nthe Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect

M/S K.M.GASES PVT.LTD.(NOW K.M.VYAPAR PVT.LTD),KANPUR vs. DY. CIT-VI, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S K.M. Gases Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit-Vi (Now Known As K.M. Vyapar Pvt. Ltd.) Kanpur 11, Moti Bhawan, 52/1, Collectorgant Kanpur (U.P) Tan/Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

section 143(3) of the Act, computing the total income of the assessee as under: Profits and Gains of Business or profession Net Profit (as per P&L a/c) 90,52,603 Add. 1. Dep. Taken separately 23,922 2. Demat Charges 1,796 3. Disallowance u/s 14A 18,731 44,449 90,97,052 Less- 1. Depreciation

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

depreciation of Head Office. In\nthe impugned appellate order, the learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing\nOfficer to verify the assessee's submissions in this regard and to allow\ndeduction u/s 80IA of the Act if the assessee's claim is found to be legally\nand factually correct. We find no infirmity in this direction given by learned\nCIT

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

In the result, appeals vide I

depreciation of Head Office. In\nthe impugned appellate order, the learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing\nOfficer to verify the assessee's submissions in this regard and to allow\ndeduction u/s 80IA of the Act if the assessee's claim is found to be legally\nand factually correct. We find no infirmity in this direction given by learned\nCIT

HAKIKAT SARAF,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(5), KANPUR

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary, Member A.Y. 2014-15 Hakikat Saraf, Income Tax Officer-2(5), 124/B/168, Govind Nagar, Vs. Kanpur Kanpur-208006 Pan:Afpps4419H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Kanpur Dated 24.01.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.47,33,000/- Under Section 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii) Of The I.T. Act, 1961, Which Addition Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law & Be Deleted. 02. Because The Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Has Arbitrarily Held, That The Difference Between The Actual Gross Consideration Rs. 1,09,34,000/- & The Stamp Value Estimated By The Stamp Valuation Authorities, Subsequently Reduced By The District Valuation Officer At Rs. 1,56,67,600/- Is Deemed Income Under Section 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii) Of The Act.

section 271(1)(c) were also initiated. 3. The assessee was aggrieved at the addition and therefore, filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that nine tenants were occupying 90% of the property and had been there for 50 to 75 years. The property was a disputed property and loaded with

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

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

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

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

44,97,865/- on account of other income accrued tut not received without appreciating the fact that :he assessee did not furnish the details before the Assessing Officer. 9. The CIT(A), Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,55,313/- on account of depreciation on unlisted assets without appreciating the fact

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

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

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

44,97,865/- on account of other income accrued tut not received without appreciating the fact that :he assessee did not furnish the details before the Assessing Officer. 9. The CIT(A), Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,55,313/- on account of depreciation on unlisted assets without appreciating the fact