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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs.5,40,871/- (correct amount on account of disallowance of depreciation is Rs.5,61,657/), disallowed

A P S ACADEMY,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-IV(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoorassessment Year 2008-09 M/S A.P.S. Academy, The Income Tax Officer, 239, Leela Building, Vs. Ward –Iv(I), Senani Vihar, Lucknow Raibareilly Road, Lucknow Pan – Aaata 7665H (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed the depreciation on software development. In the original assessment order, the entire software development expenses were disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act due to non deduction

JCIT(OSD), CC-1, LKO, LUCKNOW vs. ACP TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

disallowing the\nassessee's claim for depreciation is patently wrong.\n(E.2) The claim of the assessee for depreciation and the order

D.D AHUJA, PARTNER OF M/S D.D AHUJA & BROS.,KANPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II , KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-14

disallowance of Rs.25,269/- out of depreciation on motor car. 6. Because on facts and in circumstances of the case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S SHRI RAMSWAROOP CHARITABLE TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Y. 2013-14

disallowance of depreciation, we find that the assessee itself had not claimed depreciation as application of funds as is apparent

ACIT CIRCLE 3, LUCKNOW vs. RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 112 To 114/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2015-16 To 2017-18 Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Vs. Dcit Bank Ltd P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. 226001. Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan:Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) A.Y.2016-17 Acit Circle-3 Vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh Ltd Kar Bhawan, Lucknow Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan: Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Addl. Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Four Appeals Have Been Have Been Filed For The Assessment Years 2015 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18 By The Assessee & Revenue Ssessee & Revenue Against The Respective Orders Of The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024. While The Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, The Revenue 18, The Revenue

depreciation. The net taxable income was Rs. 76,15,298/-. Since no such claim of expenditure had been made, it could not be disallowed

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

depreciation. The net taxable income was Rs.76,15,298/-. Since no such claim of expenditure had been made, it could not be disallowed

ACIT (E), LUCKNOW vs. SHIV RAM DAS GULITI MEMORIAL SOCIETY, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit (Exemptions) Shiv Ram Das Gulati V. T. C. 46V, 5Th Floor, U.P.S.I.D.C Memorial Society Ltd, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti 53, Leader Road, Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Allahabad, Up Pan:Aabts4990G (Appellant) (Respondent) C. O. No. 05/Lkw/2022 (In Arising Out Of Ita. No. 09/Lkw/2020) Assessment Year:. 2014-15 Shiv Ram Das Gulati V. Acit (Exemptions) Memorial Society T. C. 46V, 5Th Floor, 53, Leader Road, Allahabad, U.P.S.I.D.C Ltd, Vibhuti Up. Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aabts4990G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Manish Kumar Deorah, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13 08 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 08 2024 O R D E R

disallowance of depreciation of Rs.8,48,32,796/- and disallowance of donation paid of Rs.95,191/- since there is no provision

SRI SAINATH ASSOCIATES,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance out of car expenses, depreciation, telephone expenses and expenses on business promotion — Not justified - Assessee appeared from time to time

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

In the result, appeals vide I

disallowed the claim of allocation of depreciation\nciting the reason that the claim of allocation of depreciated has already been

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

disallowance in additional depreciation without appreciating the fact that the items on which additional depreciation were claimed by the assessee

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

disallowing depreciation in P&L account under the head operating expenses which was added back while computing allowable depreciation as per I.T. Rules

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

disallowing depreciation in P&L account under the head operating expenses which was added back while computing allowable depreciation as per I.T. Rules

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E), LUCKNOW vs. M/S. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CARPET TECHNOLOGY , BHADOHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Indian Institute Of Carpet Income-Tax (Exemption), Technology, Chauri Road, Srn, Lucknow Bhadohi Pan: Aaaji0124M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akash Agrawal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Department Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Deleted The Addition Of Rs.1,70,77,516/- That Was Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer On Account Of Surplus Above 15% Of Gross Receipts. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Deleting The Addition Made Of Rs. 1,70,77,516/- On Account Of Amount Surplus Above 15% Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Instead Of Utilizing This Amount Or Crediting This Amount To Income & Expenditure Account, This Sum Was Directly Credited To Balance Sheet. 2. Appellant Craves Leave To Modify/Amend Or Add Any One Or More Grounds Of Appeal.” 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Society Is Registered Under Section 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Vide Order Dated 11.12.2006 Of The Ld. Cit, Varanasi. From A Perusal Of The Papers Submitted By The Assessee As Well As The Data Available Online, The Ld. Assessing Officer Found That There Was A Receipt Of A Grant

disallowed depreciation of Rs. 65,45,834/- in accordance with the provisions of section 11(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly

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

disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee and made an addition of Rs.1,80,77,713/- on this account. The Assessing

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

disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.43,28,224/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the income of Rs.3

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

disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.43,28,224/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the income of Rs.3

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

disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.43,28,224/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the income of Rs.3