M/S SATISH COLD STORAGE,KANPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE1(1)(1), KANPUR, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

rectification u/s. 154 for non filing of audit report or other evidence which could not be filed with the return of income. For the sake of completeness, the contents of Circular No.689 are reproduced below: I.T.A. No.76/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2017-18 5 I.T.A. No.76/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2017-18 6 I.T.A. No.76/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2017-18 7 5. I further find

M/S SATISH COLD STORAGE,KANPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE1(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

rectification u/s. 154 for non filing of audit report or other evidence which could not be filed with the return of income. For the sake of completeness, the contents of Circular No.689 are reproduced below: I.T.A. No.76/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2017-18 5 I.T.A. No.76/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2017-18 6 I.T.A. No.76/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2017-18 7 5. I further find

M/S SARASWATI SHEET GRAH,KANPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

disallowance arbitrarily made by the Ld. A.O., CPC Bangalore, amounting to Rs. I0,02,905/- claimed by the appellant under section 80IB vide Intimation under section 143(l)of the income Tax Act, 1961, and the Ld. A.O. CPC, Bangalore has also erred in law and on facts in rejecting the Rectification Application dated 26.02.2020 filed under section 154

M/S SARASWATI SHEET GRAH,KANPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

disallowance arbitrarily made by the Ld. A.O., CPC Bangalore, amounting to Rs. I0,02,905/- claimed by the appellant under section 80IB vide Intimation under section 143(l)of the income Tax Act, 1961, and the Ld. A.O. CPC, Bangalore has also erred in law and on facts in rejecting the Rectification Application dated 26.02.2020 filed under section 154

DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MORADABAD

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

154 is a mistake apparent from records not it is applicable on the old provisions or change of earlier opinion. 7. Any other ground of appeal which may be raised during the course of hearing of appeal.” 2. As the matter relates to common issues and since the assessment year 2014-15, is the first assessment year in question

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

154 is a mistake apparent from records not it is applicable on the old provisions or change of earlier opinion. 7. Any other ground of appeal which may be raised during the course of hearing of appeal.” 2. As the matter relates to common issues and since the assessment year 2014-15, is the first assessment year in question

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

154 is a mistake apparent from records not it is applicable on the old provisions or change of earlier opinion. 7. Any other ground of appeal which may be raised during the course of hearing of appeal.” 2. As the matter relates to common issues and since the assessment year 2014-15, is the first assessment year in question

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

154 is a mistake apparent from records not it is applicable on the old provisions or change of earlier opinion. 7. Any other ground of appeal which may be raised during the course of hearing of appeal.” 2. As the matter relates to common issues and since the assessment year 2014-15, is the first assessment year in question

U P SUGAR MILLS COGEN ASSOCIATION,LUCKNOW vs. AO EXEMPTION CIRCLE , LUCKNOW

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.145/Lkw/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Up Sugar Mills Cogen Association, 403, Chintels House,16-Station Road, Lucknow, Up-226001 Pan: Aaatu2238A . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

rectification under section 154 of the Act if such adjustment falls outside the ambit of Section 143(1) of the Act. The Ld AR has also relied on the CBDT Circular No. 669 dt.25/10/1993 and CBDT Instruction no. 1814 dt. 04/04/1989 drawing our attention to prima facie disallowances that is permissible u/s

ITO-6(1), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,, LUCKNOW

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.261/Lkw/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1), Lucknow . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

disallowance viz; (1) ₹1,83,48,720/ provision of interest on loans obtained from Government and (2) ₹7,11,998/- towards depreciation claimed as per Company Law. Post assessment owning to Revenue Audit Objection [in brief ‘RAO’] the Ld. AO invoked his rectification jurisdiction by notice u/s 154

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee then filed rectification application u/s 154 against the order passed

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee then filed rectification application u/s 154 against the order passed

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee then filed rectification application u/s 154 against the order passed

PRAVEEN SAXENA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-6(1), LUCKNOW-NEW

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Praveen Saxena V. Income Tax Officer 6(1) Flat No.G-01, Tower-J Lucknow - New Shalimar Gallant Vigyanpuri, Mahanagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ajpps5818N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.02.2024, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 09.01.2021, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.22,57,120/- & Also Claimed Relief Under Section 90 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) For A Sum Of Rs.3,48,632/- Being Foreign Tax Credit. The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Processed The Return Under Section 143(1) Of The Act & Rejected The Relief Of Rs.3,48,632/- Claimed By The Assessee Under Section 90 Of The

rectification application under section 154 of the Act. 2.2 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the impugned order of the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law as the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order

RSV INFRA POWER PVT LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, RANGE 3(1), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

154 which should have been accepted. 3. The addition made by Learned Lower Court was not within the preview of adjustments which could be made u/s 143(1)(a). I.T.A. No.128/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2017-18 2 4. That the Learned Lower Court erred in facts and legal aspects of the case in confirming the addition made of Rs.28

KAMAL KANT VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance of Rs.2,22,289/- on account of interest on unsecured loan. 6. That the assessment completed by learned Assessing Officer is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful as no addition can be made merely on doubt or presumption without bringing any positive evidences. 7. That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in not providing proper and adequate opportunity to the appellant

M/S STANDARD FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT LTD,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance of Rs.2,22,289/- on account of interest on unsecured loan. 6. That the assessment completed by learned Assessing Officer is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful as no addition can be made merely on doubt or presumption without bringing any positive evidences. 7. That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in not providing proper and adequate opportunity to the appellant

SACHIN VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance of Rs.2,22,289/- on account of interest on unsecured loan. 6. That the assessment completed by learned Assessing Officer is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful as no addition can be made merely on doubt or presumption without bringing any positive evidences. 7. That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in not providing proper and adequate opportunity to the appellant