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

In the result, appeals vide I

56,447/ under Section 14A is warranted in the\npresent case. The interest on the loan amount used to invest in SPVs generating\nexempt dividend income is attributable to the exempt income and, therefore, falls\nsquarely under the ambit of Section 14A.\n\nThe Hon'ble Tribunal is respectfully requested to uphold the disallowance\nmade by the Assessing Officer under

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

56,447/ under Section 14A is warranted in the\npresent case. The interest on the loan amount used to invest in SPVs generating\nexempt dividend income is attributable to the exempt income and, therefore, falls\nsquarely under the ambit of Section 14A.\nThe Hon'ble Tribunal is respectfully requested to uphold the disallowance\nmade by the Assessing Officer under Section

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

56,447/ under Section 14A is warranted in the\npresent case. The interest on the loan amount used to invest in SPVs generating\nexempt dividend income is attributable to the exempt income and, therefore, falls\nsquarely under the ambit of Section 14A.\nThe Hon'ble Tribunal is respectfully requested to uphold the disallowance\nmade by the Assessing Officer under Section

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

56(2)(x) were applicable to acquisition of\nleasehold interest in land and building as well as freehold land parcel\nAccordingly, he assuming jurisdiction under section 263 remanded matter\nto Assessing Officer holding that assessment order was erroneous and\nprejudicial to interest of revenue It was noted that assessee had\nfurnished valuation reports before NFAC and NFAC had not referred

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

depreciation was not allowable but if the \nassessee was to be assessed under the head, ‘profits and gains from business or profession’ then \ndepreciation was allowable to it. In support of her arguments, the ld. AR also filed a detailed \nwritten submission prepared by Sh. Mradul Agarwal CA, which is reproduced as under: -\nAllowability of Exemption u/s 11 of Income

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

depreciation was not allowable but if the \nassessee was to be assessed under the head, ‘profits and gains from business or profession’ then \ndepreciation was allowable to it. In support of her arguments, the ld. AR also filed a detailed \nwritten submission prepared by Sh. Mradul Agarwal CA, which is reproduced as under: - \nAllowability of Exemption u/s 11 of Income

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

depreciation was not allowable but if the \nassessee was to be assessed under the head, ‘profits and gains from business or profession’ then \ndepreciation was allowable to it. In support of her arguments, the ld. AR also filed a detailed \nwritten submission prepared by Sh. Mradul Agarwal CA, which is reproduced as under: - \nAllowability of Exemption u/s 11 of Income

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

Section 11(i) (a).\nThe Contention of the appellant is further supported by\nthe following judgments.\nA. DIT Vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission (2014) 47 Taxman 56\n(Delhi HC) wherein it was held that claim of\ndepreciation should be allowed as per principle related\nto commercial accounting when computing business\nincome.\nB. CIT Vs. The Society of Sister

BRIGHT LAND COLLEGE,,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Bright Land College, Vs. Income Tax Officer 538A / 543/5, Triveni Nagar (Exemption), Lucknow, The Sitapur Road, Lucknow Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Pan:Aaatb4391F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed On 17.10.2022 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order, Which Is Unlawful, Unjustified & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order Without Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding Ad Hoc Disallowance Of Expense Of Rs. 1,54,57,795/- Against The Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of Income-Tax Act Without Following The Procedure Laid Down In Sub-Section (1) Of Section 143 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961. 4. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Granting Exemption U/S 11 & 12 Of The I. T. Act, 1961. 1 Bright Land College A.Y. 2013-14

depreciation) 2(b) Capital Expenditure Rs.9,97,106/- Total 2,17,56,279/- Therefore, the percentage of income applied towards charitable purposes during the year was Rs.2,17,56,279/- which was 96.44% of total receipts of Rs.2,25,59,058/-. Copies of the audited balance sheet, income and expenditure account and receipt and payment account and receipt and payment

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

56,030/-. The assessee had also claimed depreciation amounting to Rs.45,86,296/-. The assessee, ITA No.144/LKW/2025 Page 2 of 5 vide notice under section

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 should be allowed while computing such income under section 11(i) (a). The Contention of the appellant is further supported by the following judgments. A. DIT Vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission (2014) 47 Taxman 56

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 should be allowed while computing such income under section 11(i) (a). The Contention of the appellant is further supported by the following judgments. A. DIT Vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission (2014) 47 Taxman 56

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

56,57,616/-. (E.1) As regards the computation of book profit u/s 115JB of IT Act, it is useful to refer to provisions of law, which are reproduced below for the ease of reference: Special provision for payment of tax by certain companies. 115JB. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, where in the case

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

56,067/-.” (A.1) The issues in dispute in these appeals/Cross Objection pertain to assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19. Although several grounds have been taken in these appeals/Cross Objection, the issues involved in them were summarized by the learned Counsel for the assessee in a tabular form for the convenience of the Bench and the learned Departmental Representative

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

56,067/-.” (A.1) The issues in dispute in these appeals/Cross Objection pertain to assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19. Although several grounds have been taken in these appeals/Cross Objection, the issues involved in them were summarized by the learned Counsel for the assessee in a tabular form for the convenience of the Bench and the learned Departmental Representative

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

56,067/-.” (A.1) The issues in dispute in these appeals/Cross Objection pertain to assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19. Although several grounds have been taken in these appeals/Cross Objection, the issues involved in them were summarized by the learned Counsel for the assessee in a tabular form for the convenience of the Bench and the learned Departmental Representative

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BAREILLY vs. SHRI SACHIT KUMAR AGARWAL, BAREILLY

In the result, the impugned order of learned CIT(A) is sustained, and\nthe appeal is dismissed

56 (Raj.)\nHeadnote\n\"Section 145 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961- Method of accounting-\nEstimation of profit\n Assessment year 2000-01 For Relevant\n assessment year, assessee company had filed its return disclosing\ngross profit rate at 2.30 per cent - Assessing Officer rejected its books\nof account and after invoking provisions of section 145 applied gross\nprofit rate

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E), LUCKNOW vs. M/S. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CARPET TECHNOLOGY , BHADOHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Indian Institute Of Carpet Income-Tax (Exemption), Technology, Chauri Road, Srn, Lucknow Bhadohi Pan: Aaaji0124M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akash Agrawal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Department Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Deleted The Addition Of Rs.1,70,77,516/- That Was Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer On Account Of Surplus Above 15% Of Gross Receipts. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Deleting The Addition Made Of Rs. 1,70,77,516/- On Account Of Amount Surplus Above 15% Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Instead Of Utilizing This Amount Or Crediting This Amount To Income & Expenditure Account, This Sum Was Directly Credited To Balance Sheet. 2. Appellant Craves Leave To Modify/Amend Or Add Any One Or More Grounds Of Appeal.” 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Society Is Registered Under Section 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Vide Order Dated 11.12.2006 Of The Ld. Cit, Varanasi. From A Perusal Of The Papers Submitted By The Assessee As Well As The Data Available Online, The Ld. Assessing Officer Found That There Was A Receipt Of A Grant

depreciation of Rs. 65,45,834/- in accordance with the provisions of section 11(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, after these disallowances, the total income of the assessee was computed at Rs. 1,70,77,516/-. 3. The assessee went in appeal to the ld. CIT(A), Varanasi. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that