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. 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

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

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

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

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

ACIT(E), LUCKNOW vs. M/S. BHAGWANT INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, BIJNOR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

section 11 thereby deleting the addition of\nRs.2,66,94,072/- in the form of admission & smart card fees, Exam fee,\nFee Receipts, Projects fees, Uniform fees, internet fees and Book Bank\nReceipts from the students beyond the prescribed amount of fees as\ndecided by the Govt. Authorities, which clearly indicates that the objects of\nthe assessee are not charitable

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

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-6 placed