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

5) cannot be pressed into service for reading a limitation of the deduction under sub-section (1) only to ‘business income’. An attempt was made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue to rely on the phrase ‘derived … from’ in Section 80-IA (1) of the Act in respect of his submission that the intention of the legislature

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

5) cannot be pressed into service for reading a limitation of the\ndeduction under sub-section (1) only to 'business income'. An attempt\nwas made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue to rely on\nthe phrase 'derived ... from' in Section 80-IA (1) of the Act in respect\nof his submission that the intention of the legislature

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

In the result, appeals vide I

5) cannot be pressed into service for reading a limitation of the\ndeduction under sub-section (1) only to 'business income'. An attempt\nwas made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue to rely on\nthe phrase 'derived ... from' in Section 80-IA (1) of the Act in respect\nof his submission that the intention of the legislature

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

5,319,146)\nAs a result of computing the 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

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

5, 2018 has held as under:-\n\"6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on\nrecord. We find that identical issue of depreciation on the intangible asset\nnamely, right to collection of toll from 'road over bridge' was decided by\nthe Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in A. Ys.2002-03

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

5. We have considered these submissions and we are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. The proviso to section 147 reads as under: "Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after

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

5. We have considered these submissions and we are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. The proviso to section 147 reads as under: "Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

section 11(2) of the Act and furthermore added back the same of Rs.14,96,91,583/- claimed as purchase cost of fixed assets and application of income. However, he thereafter allowed a deduction of Rs.1,55,15,994/-, being the depreciation on the same. The ld. AO also observed that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 5

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

depreciation at Rs 1,55, 15,994/-\n•\ncash deposits aggregating to Rs 5,59,55,800/-\n•\n10% of the aggregate expenses of Rs 67,71,95,436/-which comes to Rs\n6,77,19,543/- considering the possibility of Revenue Leakage on account of\nsuch huge unverified expenses.\nAnd thus confirming the demand that is raised.\n(5

SMT.SATYAWATI MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,FAIZABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: N.A. Smt. Satyawati Memorial Educational V. The Cit (Exemption) & Charitable Trust Lucknow Satyawati Sadan, 4/4/326 Khaswaspura, Ayodhya Road Faizabad Tan/Pan:Aajts7143K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Sheela Chopra, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 08 2022 O R D E R

depreciation shown at Rs.15,67,099/-; and (5) that under the Third Proviso to Section 10(23C)(vi) of the I.T. Act , surplus

DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. PRAYAGRAJ POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD.,, NOIDA

In the result, ground no. 1 of appeal is dismissed and ground no

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

depreciation is nil; or (iv) [***] to (vi) (vii) the amount of profits of sick industrial company for the assessment year commencing on and from the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the said company has become a sick industrial company under sub- section (1) of section 17 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions

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-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

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

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

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

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

section 66(5) of the Income-tax Act. We further direct that the assessee\nshall pay to the Commissioner of Income-tax his costs of the reference,\nwhich we assess at Rs.200.\nQuestion answered in the affirmative.”\n\n31. In the light of the above binding precedents, we are of the\nview that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have