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

54,446/- as income \nunder head Business & Profession. \n9. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in \nwrongly confirming the addition of 31,53,656/- 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

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

54,446/- as income \nunder head Business & Profession. \n9. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in \nwrongly confirming the addition of 31,53,656/- 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

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 of Rs.5,61,657/- claimed by the assessee and completed the assessment under sections 143(3)/147 of the Act, computing the income of the assessee as under: Gross Income 85,97,534/- Less 15% 12,89,630/- Balance 73,07,904/- Less: Application of income i) Revenue expenses 50,14,780/- ii) Capital expenses 4,53,474/- 54

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 of Rs.5,61,657/- claimed by the assessee and completed the assessment under sections 143(3)/147 of the Act, computing the income of the assessee as under: Gross Income 85,97,534/- Less 15% 12,89,630/- Balance 73,07,904/- Less: Application of income i) Revenue expenses 50,14,780/- ii) Capital expenses 4,53,474/- 54

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P HINDI SANSTHAN, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. U.P. Hindi Sansthan. Commissioner Of Income V. 6, Hindi Sansthan, Mg Road, Tax (Exemptions) Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001. T.C. 46V, 5Th Floor, Upsidc Ltd, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aaaau1297Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S. U.P. Hindi Sansthan. Tax (Exemptions) 6, Hindi Sansthan, Mg T.C. 46V, 5Th Floor, Upsidc Ltd, Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow- Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, 226001. Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aaaju0103A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Hariom Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 11 2024 O R D E R

section 11(6) of I.T. Act 1961. Therefore, the treatment of this amount as depreciation is not being allowed. This amount is not being allowed as application of income. In view of the discussion above, the income of the assessee for F.Y. 2015- 16 is computed as under: Gross receipts as per Income & Expenditure A/c Rs.9,76,75,680/- Less

M/S U.P HINDI SANSTHAN,LUCKNOW vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. U.P. Hindi Sansthan. Commissioner Of Income V. 6, Hindi Sansthan, Mg Road, Tax (Exemptions) Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001. T.C. 46V, 5Th Floor, Upsidc Ltd, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aaaau1297Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S. U.P. Hindi Sansthan. Tax (Exemptions) 6, Hindi Sansthan, Mg T.C. 46V, 5Th Floor, Upsidc Ltd, Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow- Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, 226001. Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aaaju0103A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Hariom Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 11 2024 O R D E R

section 11(6) of I.T. Act 1961. Therefore, the treatment of this amount as depreciation is not being allowed. This amount is not being allowed as application of income. In view of the discussion above, the income of the assessee for F.Y. 2015- 16 is computed as under: Gross receipts as per Income & Expenditure A/c Rs.9,76,75,680/- Less

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.

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Section 14A of I. T. Act\nr. w. r. 8D of 1. T. Rules. Thus, the disallowance upheld Rs.58,09,459/-solely on the\nbasis of CBDT Circular is not valid as per Law.\nWITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE\n\n7\n\n(3) That the deduction of Rs.16,43,987/- w. r. t. fall in Value of Securities

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

Section 14A of I. T. Act r. w. r. 8D of 1. T. Rules. Thus, the disallowance upheld Rs.58,09,459/-solely on the basis of CBDT Circular is not valid as per Law. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE ITA. No.141/LKW/2024 (3) That the deduction of Rs. 16,43,987/- w. r. t. fall in Value of Securities

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Section 14A of I. T. Act r. w. r. 8D of 1. T. Rules. Thus, the disallowance upheld Rs.58,09,459/-solely on the basis of CBDT Circular is not valid as per Law.\nWITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE\n7\nITA Nos.112 to 114/LKW/2024\nITA. No.141/LKW/2024\n(3) That the deduction of Rs.16,43,987/- w. r. t. fall in Value

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

Section 14A of I. T. Act\nr. w. r. 8D of 1. T. Rules. Thus, the disallowance upheld Rs.58,09,459/-solely on the\nbasis of CBDT Circular is not valid as per Law.\nWITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE\n7\nITA Nos.112 to 114/LKW/2024\nITA. No.141/LKW/2024\n(3) That the deduction of Rs.16,43,987/- w. r. t. fall in Value

PRATHAMA CONSTRUCTIONS,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(2), LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2016-17 Prathama Constructions V. The Ito-2(2) F-120, Ganj Plaza Lucknow 42, Masjid Lane Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aakfp8300L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 04 2025 O R D E R

section 143(3) of the Act, computing the income of the assessee as under: Income as per P&L account : Rs.7,56,030/- Addition on a/c of depreciation : Rs.31,98,658/- Total income (rounded off) : Rs.39,54

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

54,446/- 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 31,53,656/- 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

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

54-85 of the paper book filed before us. Further from the details\nsubmitted by the assessee in the tabular form, the Id. AO had sought to\nselect 7 parties out of the said list and made further examination by\nissuing notice u/s.133(6) of the Act to those seven parties. All the seven\nparties duly responded directly before

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

depreciation as shown in the audit report. The contention that the AO should have made enquiry/verification on these items while passing the impugned order raises the question as to how these finding was arrived and basis for issuing notice u/s 263. However, in the impugned order, the Ld. PCIT has neither discussed nor rebutted the appellant's reply

GURU KRIPA ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PR. CIT, , BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

54,00,000/- in cash in the bank account maintained\nwith Bank of Baroda. The explanation submitted by the assessee, that the\naforesaid cash deposits were made out of cash sale of stone grits and sand;\nwas accepted by the Assessing Officer on its face value without further\nverification. There is nothing on record to show that any attempt

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

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

Section 68 and in this respect our attention was invited to pages 43 to 54 of the paper book relating to assessment year 2015-16 where a copy of reply, filed before the Assessing Officer, was placed. Our attention was also invited to pages 55 to 72 of the same paper book where a copy of confirmation of account