UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

73,557/- ignoring the fact section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194C of the I.T. Act is applicable in case of carrying out any work including supply of labour for carrying out any work. 3. The CIT(A), Lucknow, has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.11,31,25,121/- without appreciating the fact

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

73,28,994/-. Relevant portion of the assessment order is reproduced as under: I.T.A. No.393/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2016-17 3 I.T.A. No.393/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2016-17 4 I.T.A. No.393/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2016-17 5 I.T.A. No.393/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2016-17 6 I.T.A. No.393/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2016-17 7 I.T.A. No.393/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2016-17 8 (B.1) In the aforesaid assessment

M/S. MERCURY INDUSTRIES LTD.,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2014-15

73,394/- was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved with the action of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before learned CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer on this issue also. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. At the time of hearing before

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

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

U.P SAMAJ KALYAN NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS U.P STATE CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.),LUCKNOW vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, LUCKNOW

depreciation as shown in\nthe audit report. The contention that the AO should have made\nenquiry/verification on these items while passing the impugned order raises the\nquestion as to how these finding was arrived and basis for issuing notice u/s\n263.\nHowever, in the impugned order, the Ld. PCIT has neither discussed nor\nrebutted the appellant's reply

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

73,237/- vide order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Aggrieved with this assessment framed by the AO, the appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 3. During the course of appellate proceedings, Shri S.C. Agarwal, Advocate and Shri Pradeep Agarwal, Senior Accounts Officer appeared before me and filed written

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

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 Less 15% Balance 85,97,534/- 12,89,630/- 73

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.

73,080/-. During the course of assessment, the ld. AO made the following additions:- i. Out of bad debts claimed being TDS Rs. 5,30,187/- ii. Out of bad debts claimed as unrecoverable Rs. 4,05,770/- iii. On account of cessation of liabilities under section 41(1) Rs. 2,82,364/- 2 Commercial Automobiles

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

73 years and due to Covid-19 Pandemic, there was distraction in the office functioning of the Counsel of the assessee, which has led to the misplacement of the appeal file, resulting into delay in filing the present appeal. Accordingly, I am satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing of the present appeal, hence

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

73 of the Gujarat Man time Board Act 1981 all moneys received by or on behalf of the Board were to be credited to a fund called the general account of the minor ports and under section 74, detailed guidelines as noted at page 564 of the report, were there. The mode of dealing with deficit or surplus was contemplated

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

73 of the Gujarat Man time Board Act 1981 all moneys received by or on behalf of the Board were to be credited to a fund called the general account of the minor ports and under section 74, detailed guidelines as noted at page 564 of the report, were there. The mode of dealing with deficit or surplus was contemplated

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

73 of the Gujarat Man time Board Act 1981 all moneys received by or on behalf of the Board were to be credited to a fund called the general account of the minor ports and under section 74, detailed guidelines as noted at page 564 of the report, were there. The mode of dealing with deficit or surplus was contemplated

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

73 of the Gujarat Man time Board Act 1981 all moneys received by or on behalf of the Board were to be credited to a fund called the general account of the minor ports and under section 74, detailed guidelines as noted at page 564 of the report, were there. The mode of dealing with deficit or surplus was contemplated

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

In the result, appeals vide I

depreciation of Head Office. In\nthe impugned appellate order, the learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing\nOfficer to verify the assessee's submissions in this regard and to allow\ndeduction u/s 80IA of the Act if the assessee's claim is found to be legally\nand factually correct. We find no infirmity in this direction given by learned\nCIT

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

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

73,65,536/- Total\n: Rs.269,23,00,312/-\nAddition on a/c of balance with implem. Agencies\nRs.334,64,76,831/-\nAddition on a/c of fund in transit\n94,13,54,207/-\nAssessed Total\nIncome\nRs.698,01,31,350/-\nAssessment of the case is completed at total income of\nRs.698

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)

73,65,536/- Total\n: Rs.269,23,00,312/-\n\nAddition on a/c of balance with implem. Agencies\nRs.334,64,76,831/-\n\nAddition on a/c of fund in transit\n94,13,54,207/- Rs.\nAssessed Total\nRs.698,01,31,350/-\nIncome\nAssessment of the case is completed at total income of\nRs.698

MADKINI HYDRO POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 4(3), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2018-19 Madkini Hydro Power Private V. The Income Tax Officer 4(3) Limited Lucknow Flat No.4, Ii Floor 3, Scindia House Delhi 110 001 Tan/Pan:Aaecm1420B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalendera Kishore Singh, Adv. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

depreciation". The Assessing Officer (AO) issued statutory notices to the assessee. However, there was no response from the side of the assessee. On examination of the return of income filed by the assessee, the AO noticed that during the year under consideration, the assessee had shown an amount of Rs.12,31,00,000/- as total Long Term Borrowings and Rs.2