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

72,493/- was not allocated which resulted in excess claim of depreciation of Head Office. In the impugned appellate order, the learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee’s submissions in this regard and to allow deduction u/s 80IA of the Act if the assessee’s claim is found to be legally and factually correct

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

72,493/- was not allocated which resulted in excess claim of depreciation of Head Office. In the impugned appellate order, the learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee’s submissions in this regard and to allow deduction u/s 80IA of the Act if the assessee’s claim is found to be legally and factually correct

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

72,493/- was not allocated which resulted in excess claim of depreciation of Head Office. In the impugned appellate order, the learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee’s submissions in this regard and to allow deduction u/s 80IA of the Act if the assessee’s claim is found to be legally and factually correct

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. M/S ROHIT SURFACTANTS PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 801B and 80IC of the Act and wrongly worked out the eligible profit for claiming such deduction. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the relief Rs.14,20,72,292/- on account of deduction U/s 801B & 801C without appreciating the fact that the CIT(A) has quoted the case

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S PRAG INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Videshri Anadee Nath Misshra

72,121/-. He has noted that fixed assets qualifying for depreciation in Lucknow unit is higher than the depreciation in Dehradun unit. He has also noted that there is higher deployment of labour at Lucknow unit and has mentioned the comparative figures of corresponding expenditure and corresponding labour expenditure which is Rs.8,78,002/- for Dehradun unit and multiple times

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

Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and\ndismiss the appeal filed by the assessee.\nDisallowance of Rs.2,21,72,493/\nThe Ld. A.O. has rightly disallowed the claim of allocation of depreciation

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

depreciation on leasehold right in land and building was not\nallowable as per section 43B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The order\nwas revised and cancelled by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the\nAct on the ground that the expenses claimed for the creation of brand\nwere capital expenditure for creating an intangible asset. On appeal by\nthe

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

section 145(3) of the Act and making the addition for the difference. I find that the position has been explained by the appellant both during the assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings that the figure of Rs. 58,72,11,589/- is a typographical error and correct value of closing stock as per books of accounts and verified

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

section 145(3) of the Act and making the addition for the difference. I find that the position has been explained by the appellant both during the assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings that the figure of Rs. 58,72,11,589/- is a typographical error and correct value of closing stock as per books of accounts and verified

UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

72,000/- 19,14,80,000/-\n3. Jal Sansthan, Jhanshi\n24,21,69,079/- 20,88,64,330/- 3,33,04,749/-\n4. Jal Sansthan, Jhanshi\n24,13,03,952/- 21,50,71,579/- 2,62,32,373/-\nTotal 111,60,41,022/-\nSupport Fund:\nSl Name of Implanting Received during the Payment during the Difference (Rs.)\nNo. Agencies\nyear

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)

72,000/- 19,14,80,000/-\n3. Jal Sansthan, Jhanshi\n24,21,69,079/- 20,88,64,330/- 3,33,04,749/-\n4. Jal Sansthan, Jhanshi\n24,13,03,952/- 21,50,71,579/- 2,62,32,373/-\nTotal 111,60,41,022/-\n\nSupport Fund:\n\nSl Name of Implanting Received during the Payment during the Difference

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

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

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

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

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

72,810/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued statutory notices to the assessee. In compliance to the notices, assessee’s Counsel attended before the AO and furnished copies of audited Financial Statements, books of account and original bank statements. From the computation of ITA No.199/LKW/2022 Page 2 of 8 income filed

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

72 & 73, required the assessee vide para 7 to file complete details of bank accounts along with the relevant statement of bank accounts. The assessee in his reply vide letter dated 09/11/2011 placed at pages 18 to 19 of the paper book, submitted the required information vide para 7 and submitted the details of bank accounts as per Annexure