M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

20. We further find that with the insertion of section 10(46) of the Act, introduced by the statute by the Finance Act 2011, the specified income arising to a body or trust or Board or Trust or Commission, which has been established or constituted by a Central or a State Act, for any activity for the benefit of general

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

10 to 19 of the paper book. He further submitted that this issue has been considered by Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for A.Y 1991-92 in ITA No.714/LUC/02, wherein, it has been categorically held that "therefore, if any disallowance is to be made in the cost debited to the Contract Account, then corresponding

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

10 to 19 of the paper book. He further submitted that this issue has been considered by Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for A.Y 1991-92 in ITA No.714/LUC/02, wherein, it has been categorically held that "therefore, if any disallowance is to be made in the cost debited to the Contract Account, then corresponding

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

10(268) of the Act is deleted giving relief to the appellant. 7(1) Ground of appeal number 4 is as under- 4. That the Ld. A.O. was wrong in making of addition of Rs.6,95,21,880/- on account of Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) to the total income of the assessee of the following grounds

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

section 8(2) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 disallowing the exemption A.Ys. 1995-96 & 1996-97 M/s U.P. State Industrial Development Ltd claimed by the assessee under the Interest Tax Act and made the following additions to the chargeable interest of the assessee for the A.Y.1995-96; i. Interest received on deposits Rs. 98,43,985/- ii. Interest received

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

In the result, appeals vide I

disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was made\nsolely on the basis of investment by Assessee Company in SPVs without\nverifying objects of investment and understanding of relevant provision of law.\nIt is also submitted that section 14A carries heading 'Expenditure\nincurred in relation to income not includible in total income'\n\nAs per Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT ,, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Cit (Exemptions) V. M/S Indian Institute Of Management Lucknow Lucknow Off Sitapur Road, Prabandh Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaati2622Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S. K. Madhuk, Cit (Dr) Respondent By: Shri Ashish Kapoor, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 20 08 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 08 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Revenue’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Lucknow, Dated 8/5/2018, For The Assessment Year 2010-11, Taking The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee & Deleting The Addition Of Rs.4,05,76,925/- Made On Account Of The Assessee Had Not Maintained Separate Books Of Accounts In Respect Of The Business Activities, Which Are Not Incidental To The Objectives Of The Society. 2. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Following Other Year'S Appellate Order & Thereby

20 08 2019 Date of pronouncement: 22 08 2019 O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: This is Revenue’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Lucknow, dated 8/5/2018, for the Assessment Year 2010-11, taking the following grounds of appeal: 1. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law and facts

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (FORMELY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),LUCKNOW vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

20. With regard to the various case laws relied upon by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) held that they were distinguishable. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) held that the ld. AO had rightly disallowed the exemption under section 11 and 12 of the assessee and had rightly assessed its income as taxable business income. 21. With regard

PANKAJ AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. JT.CIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Pankaj Agarwal, 7/151, Ratan Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Majestic, Opp. Sony World, Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur-208002 Kanpur-208001 Pan:Abjfs4912R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma Sr Dr & Sh Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21.08.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit (A) Has The Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Loss In Trading In Derivatives Business Treating The Same As Capital Loss, As Against Assessee'S Claim Of Business Loss, To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, Which Order Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Disallowance Made By The Ao & Upheld Be Deleted. 2. Because On A Proper Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Also On The Interpretation Of The Provisions Of Sec 43(5), It Would Be Found The Loss Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Trading In Derivative Is Neither A Speculative Loss Nor A Capital Loss, The Same Should Ought To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, The Cit (A) Has Erred, In Treating The Same As Short Term Capital Loss.

disallowance, could be regarded as the satisfaction of the ld. AO for invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act. Therefore, he held that the ld. AO had rightly invoked the provisions of section 14A of the Act and he dismissed the appeal of the assessee in this regard. On other issues involved in the assessments

LUCKNOW EVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. I.T.O., LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

20 UPDA. vi. Ultimate Power/ Control vest in the hands of State Government – Section 29 and Section 41. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 22 vii. State Government has power to make rules- Section 55 of UPUPDA. viii. Without prior approval of State Government, no regulations and bye laws can be made - Section 56 and Section 57 of UPUPDA. Learned

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

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

20 UPDA. vi. Ultimate Power/ Control vest in the hands of State Government – Section 29 and Section 41. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 22 vii. State Government has power to make rules- Section 55 of UPUPDA. viii. Without prior approval of State Government, no regulations and bye laws can be made - Section 56 and Section 57 of UPUPDA. Learned

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

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

20 UPDA. vi. Ultimate Power/ Control vest in the hands of State Government – Section 29 and Section 41. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 22 vii. State Government has power to make rules- Section 55 of UPUPDA. viii. Without prior approval of State Government, no regulations and bye laws can be made - Section 56 and Section 57 of UPUPDA. Learned

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

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

20 UPDA. vi. Ultimate Power/ Control vest in the hands of State Government – Section 29 and Section 41. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 22 vii. State Government has power to make rules- Section 55 of UPUPDA. viii. Without prior approval of State Government, no regulations and bye laws can be made - Section 56 and Section 57 of UPUPDA. Learned

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

20 UPDA. vi. Ultimate Power/ Control vest in the hands of State Government – Section 29 and Section 41. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 22 vii. State Government has power to make rules- Section 55 of UPUPDA. viii. Without prior approval of State Government, no regulations and bye laws can be made - Section 56 and Section 57 of UPUPDA. Learned

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

20 concerned the funds of the \nauthority and stated that they could only be used in the administration of the Act. Section 41 \ndealt with control by the state Govt and gave it the power to issue instructions, while section 55 \ngave the state govt the power to make rules for the administration of the act. Thus, it was \nsubmitted

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

20 concerned the funds of the \nauthority and stated that they could only be used in the administration of the Act. Section 41 \ndealt with control by the state Govt and gave it the power to issue instructions, while section 55 \ngave the state govt the power to make rules for the administration of the act. Thus, it was \nsubmitted

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

10(20), the assessee could not claim any benefit under those provisions after April 1, 2003. The assessee subsequently claimed that its objects falls under the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act and has 32 ITA No.30(Asr)/2011 complied with all the eligibility criteria for grant of registration under section 12A of the Act, which was allowed

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

10(20), the assessee could not claim any benefit under those provisions after April 1, 2003. The assessee subsequently claimed that its objects falls under the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act and has 32 ITA No.30(Asr)/2011 complied with all the eligibility criteria for grant of registration under section 12A of the Act, which was allowed