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

Section 80-IA of the Act.” (C.1.1) As the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. (supra), the Assessing Officer is directed to allow deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of interest earned by the assessee from FDR kept for release

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

section 80 IA. Impact is as below.\nSr No. Name of\nProject/Site\nExpense before\ndirect\nallocation of\nFDRs Income\nExpense After\ndirect allocation of\nFDRs Income\nIncrease/\n(Decrease) in\nProfit\n1\nBABATPUR\n89,824,766\n90.381.936\n-557,170\n2\nBASTI\n11,702,829\n10,798,939\n903,889\n3\nGANDAK\n199,565,965\n198

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

In the result, appeals vide I

section 80 IA. Impact is as below.\n\nSr No. Name\nProject/Site\nExpense before\ndirect\nallocation of\nFDRs Income\nExpense After\ndirect allocation of\nFDRs Income\nIncrease/\n(Decrease) in\nProfit\n1\nBABATPUR\n89,824,766\n90.381.936\n-557,170\n2\nBASTI\n11,702,829\n10,798,939\n903,889\n3\nGANDAK\n199,565,965\n198

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

section 80 IA. Impact is as below.\nSr No.\nName of\nProject/Site\nExpense before\ndirect\nallocation of\nFDRs Income\nExpense After\ndirect allocation of\nFDRs Income\nIncrease/\n(Decrease) in\nProfit\n1\nBABATPUR\n89,824,766\n90.381.936\n-557,170\n2\nBASTI\n11,702,829\n10,798,939\n903,889\n3\nGANDAK\n199,565,965\n198

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

80-O of the Act had only been processed without there being any application of mind. The reasons recorded by the respondent, in so far as the assessment year 1997- 98 is concerned, cannot be said to be based on mere change of opinion. The principles laid down by this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Har Saran

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

80-O of the Act had only been processed without there being any application of mind. The reasons recorded by the respondent, in so far as the assessment year 1997- 98 is concerned, cannot be said to be based on mere change of opinion. The principles laid down by this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Har Saran

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

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

depreciation claimed by the assessee and made an\naddition of Rs.1,80,77,713/- on this account. The Assessing\nOfficer also disallowed certain expenditure on the ground that\nthe same could not be verified. Thus, 25% of such expenditure\nITA No.219/LKW/2020\nPage 3 of 23\nwas disallowed and made addition of Rs.37,55,277/- in this\nregard. Further, the Assessing

GURU KRIPA ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PR. CIT, , BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

80,381/- as against Rs.17,13,957/- on 31st October 2015, which is 4 times more as compared to the previous year.\n(f) The cash in hand as on 8th Nov 2016 was apparently explained by increasing sales and cash in hand on 31st October 2016 shown at Rs 2,58,00,464/- to justify the huge deposits made

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

section 143(3). (3) That a demand of tax as computed in the computation sheet is without jurisdiction void-ab-inito and is liable to be annulled. (4) That the Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 736591857/-comprising  Corpus Donation aggregating to Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

section 143(3).\n(3) That a demand of tax as computed in the computation sheet is without\njurisdiction void-ab-inito and is liable to be annulled.\n(4) That the Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in confirming\nthe addition of Rs.736591857/-comprising\n•\nCorpus Donation aggregating

SAHAKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD,,BAGHAULI, HARDOI vs. THE ITO, RANGE-3(2), HARDOI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

depreciation of Rs.44,655/- and added the same to the income of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, computing the total income of the assessee at Rs.17,37,790/- as against Nil income returned by the assessee. 2.5 The appeal filed by the assessee before the NFAC for assessment year

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD. ,BAGHAULI, HARDOI vs. THE ITO RANGE-3(3), HARDOI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

depreciation of Rs.44,655/- and added the same to the income of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, computing the total income of the assessee at Rs.17,37,790/- as against Nil income returned by the assessee. 2.5 The appeal filed by the assessee before the NFAC for assessment year

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

depreciation as shown in the audit report. The contention that the AO should have made enquiry/verification on these items while passing the impugned order raises the question as to how these finding was arrived and basis for issuing notice u/s 263. However, in the impugned order, the Ld. PCIT has neither discussed nor rebutted the appellant's reply

ALLIANCE NIRMAAN LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation claim and income from real estate business during the\nyear. On this point, categorical explanation was called from the\nassessee and the same has been submitted by him, which has been\nplaced on record.”\n3.\nVide impugned order dated 23.03.2022 of the PCIT, the assessment\norder dated 14/12/2019 was set aside to be framed denovo

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

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

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 (Rs.)\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)

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 (Rs.)\nNo. Agencies\nyear (Rs.)\nyear

SHRI RAJEEV JAIN,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Rajeev Jain V. The Ito-3 15, Plot No.17 Kanpur Singh Engg. Compound 84/21, Fazalganj Kanpur - 12 Tan/Pan:Abfpj1327D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Alka Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29 11 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 12 2022 O R D E R

80 to 82. The assessee also filed confirmed copies of accounts in the books of Gurudev Steel regarding proceeds of Rs.24 lakhs, i.e., amounting to Rs.15 lakhs and amounting to Rs.9 lakhs as depicted in the bank accounts of the assessee. The details are enclosed at pages 83 to 84 of the assessee’s paper book. The ld. Council

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. M/S NARAIN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

80,79,914.70/- by simply adding the 3 Crores. Thus, these facts clearly indicated that the subsequent balance-sheet had no base and was not supported by any books of accounts of the company. Therefore, he deleted the addition made by the ld. AO. 5. The Department is aggrieved with this decision of the ld. CIT(A). Sh. Sanjeev Krishna