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

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

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

80 IA is as below: Sr No. Name Project/Site of Depreciation Expense as per Company Act Deduction in computation of profit u/s 801A Depreciation Expense as per I.T. Act Increase/ (Decrease) in Profit 1 BABATPUR 3578891 4039994 (461,103) 2 BASTI 328028 428052 (100,024) 3 GANDAK 1505976 5175221 (3,669,245) 4 JEEVNATHPUR 3159205 3560606 (401,401) 5 KACHWA

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. COMMERCIAL ENGINEERS & BODY BUILDERS CO. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

depreciation to the assessee being 50% of 20% of the cost of new Plant & Machinery installed by the assessee, wherein the facts, mutatis mutandis, were the same, and which order of the Tribunal has not been to shown to have been upset, or even stayed, on further appeal, we find no merit in the grounds raised by the Revenue. Accordingly

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. COMMERCIAL ENGINEERS & BODY BUILDERS CO. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

depreciation to the assessee being 50% of 20% of the cost of new Plant & Machinery installed by the assessee, wherein the facts, mutatis mutandis, were the same, and which order of the Tribunal has not been to shown to have been upset, or even stayed, on further appeal, we find no merit in the grounds raised by the Revenue. Accordingly

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 80 IA. Impact is as below. Sr No. Name of Project/Site Expense before direct allocation of FDRs Income Expense After direct allocation of FDRs Income Increase/ (Decrease) in Profit 1 BABATPUR 89,824,766 90.381.936 -557,170 2 BASTI 11,702,829 10,798,939 903,889 3 GANDAK 199,565,965 198,901,767 -664,198 4 JEEVNATHPUR

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

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BAREILLY vs. M/S L.H SUGAR FACTORY PVT. LTD.,, PILIBHIT

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against an order passed by the tribunal dated 16.9.2015 for the assessment year 2007-08. The following questions of law sought are being sought to be answered: "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ITAT was justified in affirming the action of the A.O. in estimating the suppressed production

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.219/Lkw/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit (Exemptions) V. M/S. Bhagwant Institute Of Technology T. C. 46V, 5Th Floor, U.P.S.I.D.C Ltd., Vibhutikhhand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226001. Avas Vikas Coloney, Bijnor-243001. Pan:Aaatb4195M अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कि और से/Appellant By: Shri R. K. Agarwal Cit(Dr) प्रत्यर्थी कि और से /Respondent By: Shri Vinod Kumar, Ca सुनवाई कि तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05 08 2025 घोषणा कि तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 31 10 2025 आदेश / O R Der Per Kul Bharat.: This Appeal, By The Revenue, Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Moradabad Dated 17.03.2020, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Allowing The Benefit Of Section 11 Thereby Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,66,94,072/- In The Form Of Admission & Smart Card Fees, Exam Fee, Fee Receipts, Projects Fees, Uniform Fees, Internet Fees & Book Bank Receipts From The Students Beyond The Prescribed Amount Of Fees As Decided By The Govt. Authorities, Which Clearly Indicates That The Objects Of The Assessee Are Not Charitable; 2. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition/Disallowance Of Rs.37,55,277/- Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Could Not Substantiate It'S Claim With Documentary Evidences

depreciation claimed by the assessee and made an addition of Rs.1,80,77,713/- on this account. The Assessing Officer also disallowed certain expenditure on the ground that the same could not be verified. Thus, 25% of such expenditure ITA No.219/LKW/2020 Page 3 of 23 was disallowed and made addition of Rs.37,55,277/- in this regard. 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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

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/-, • Accumulation

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

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