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

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

7) contained the objects of the \nauthority, while section (10) provided for submission of the plan to the state government for \napproval. Section (16) of the Act laid down that once the plan was approved, the lands and \nbuildings would be used only according to the plan. Section 20 concerned the funds of the \nauthority and stated that they could

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

7) contained the objects of the \nauthority, while section (10) provided for submission of the plan to the state government for \napproval. Section (16) of the Act laid down that once the plan was approved, the lands and \nbuildings would be used only according to the plan. Section 20 concerned the funds of the \nauthority and stated that they could

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

7) contained the objects of the \nauthority, while section (10) provided for submission of the plan to the state government for \napproval. Section (16) of the Act laid down that once the plan was approved, the lands and \nbuildings would be used only according to the plan. Section 20 concerned the funds of the \nauthority and stated that they could

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

7 or section 9 or section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016). Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,— (i) "Adjudicating Authority" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (1) of section 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016); (ii) "Tribunal" shall have the meaning assigned

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

depreciation claimed of Rs. 31,53,656/- as per the provisions of section 11(6). The issues of rental income and violation of section 13(3) were also raised in the assessment for the assessment year 2017-18. 15. Aggrieved by the rejection of its claim for exemption in all these assessment orders, the assessee went in appeal

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

7 wrongly treated the same as ‘Deduction under section 32(1)(iii) of the Act’ in place of ‘Any Other Deductions’ and made the addition. The ld. CIT(A), vide his impugned order passed under section 250 of the Act, sustained the addition so made by the Assessing Officer. 9. So far as computation of capital gains in case

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 as discussed Rs. 33,762/- 5. Out of Misc. Expenses as discussed above Rs. 1,75,498/- 6. Addition on account of late deposit of ESI u/s 2(24)(x) read with 36(1)(va) as discussed Rs. 7,771/- 7. Addition under section

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

Section 13(2) and 13(3) of the Act are not\nattracted and if satisfied, the AO is directed to allow benefit of\naccumulation. Accordingly, we allow ground Nos.3, 4, 6 & 7 in\nassessee's appeal for assessment year 2014-15 for statistical\npurposes.\n6.5 Coming to the issue of disallowance of depreciation

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

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

depreciation on the basis that during the\nappellate proceedings Bills & Vouchers pertaining to fixed assets\namounting to Rs.18,23,310/- were produced for verification.\nAggrieved by this, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.\n\n4. Apropos to the Ground Nos.2, 3 and 4 of the Ld. Counsel\nfor the assessee contended that the no addition was made

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

section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for the assessment year." 6. In the present case the purported reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment were as under:- "Reasons of the belief that income has escaped Assessment. In this case the assessment for the asstt. Year 2002-03 was made

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

section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for the assessment year." 6. In the present case the purported reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment were as under:- "Reasons of the belief that income has escaped Assessment. In this case the assessment for the asstt. Year 2002-03 was made

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

7. The contention on behalf of the Revenue before us is that the Assessing Officer was right in holding that the deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act should be restricted to ‘business income’ only. Mr. Arijit Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submitted that Section 80AB of the Act contemplates deductions in respect

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

7. The contention on behalf of the Revenue before us is that the Assessing Officer was right in holding that the deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act should be restricted to ‘business income’ only. Mr. Arijit Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submitted that Section 80AB of the Act contemplates deductions in respect

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

7. The contention on behalf of the Revenue before us is that the Assessing Officer was right in holding that the deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act should be restricted to ‘business income’ only. Mr. Arijit Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submitted that Section 80AB of the Act contemplates deductions in respect

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

7) of the said section as the claim\nwas not made while filing the return of income.\nThe Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by exceeding the\npowers conferred under section 251 of the IT Act, 1961 by\ndirecting the Assessing Officer to verify the claim made by the\nassessee u/s 80IA which amounts to setting