USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 10(37) of the Act. vi. Appellant never claimed exemption from income tax for transfer of agricultural land, while claiming said land being not a capital asset. Whereas, appellant claimed exemption for the very reason that land transferred is an agricultural land, which is a capital asset. Income tax on transfer of such land is exempt u/s 10(37

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

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

10,45,71,123/- by making certain additions. 4. Later on, the case was set-aside as per provision of Sec. 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 28.03.2018 (F. No. Pr. CII-2/Tech/Lko/263/AY 2013-14/UPSCIDC/2017-18/1131) OF THE Ld. Pr CIT-2, Lucknow. Accordingly, notices u/s 142(1) of the Income

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

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we don't see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act.” Page 22 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM

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

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we don't see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act.” Page 22 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM

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

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we don't see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act.” Page 22 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is held to be partly allowed

section 8(2) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 disallowing the exemption\nclaimed by the assessee under the Interest Tax Act and made the following\nadditions to the chargeable interest of the assessee for the A.Y.1995-96;\ni. Interest received on deposits Rs.98,43,985/-\nii. Interest received on loans and others Rs.20,13,599/-\niii. Interest received on UPSEB loan

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

10. Clarification in respect of disallowance under section 14A in absence of any exempt income during an assessment year 10.1 Section 14A of the Act provides that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income that does not form part of the total income as per the provisions

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

10. Clarification in respect of disallowance under section 14A in absence of any exempt income during an assessment year 10.1 Section 14A of the Act provides that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income that does not form part of the total income as per the provisions

U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-VI, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

10. Clarification in respect of disallowance under section 14A in absence of any exempt income during an assessment year 10.1 Section 14A of the Act provides that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income that does not form part of the total income as per the provisions

DCIT, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

10. Clarification in respect of disallowance under section 14A in absence of any exempt income during an assessment year 10.1 Section 14A of the Act provides that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income that does not form part of the total income as per the provisions

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

10. Clarification in respect of disallowance under section 14A in absence of any exempt income during an assessment year 10.1 Section 14A of the Act provides that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income that does not form part of the total income as per the provisions

KWALITY RESTAURANT,KANPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 Kwality Restaurant V. The Cit(A) 16/97, The Mall Delhi Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaafk8712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.9.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 115 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Which Is Also Supported By An Affidavit. 3. I Have Gone Through The Application For Condonation Of Delay As Well As The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee & Heard The Contention Of The Ld. D.R. On The Issue Of Condonation Of Delay. The Ld. D.R. Has Objected To The Condonatiion Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Is Shifting The Blame Of Delay On Its Counsel. 4. Having Considered The Reasons Explained By The Assessee In The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That The Assessee Has Explained The Cause Of Delay That Due To An Oversight Of The Counsel Of The Assessee, Necessary Steps For Filing

disallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too starts with a non-obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head "Profits and Gains of Business and Profession". Likewise, Section 40A(2) opens with a non- obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible

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

10. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Provision for Development expenses of Rs. 2,29,37,07,973/-. 11. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing order which is contrary to the facts and law. ASSESSMENT YEAR

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

10. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Provision for Development expenses of Rs. 2,29,37,07,973/-. 11. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing order which is contrary to the facts and law. ASSESSMENT YEAR

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

10. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Provision for Development expenses of Rs. 2,29,37,07,973/-. 11. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing order which is contrary to the facts and law. ASSESSMENT YEAR

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

10. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Provision for Development expenses of Rs. 2,29,37,07,973/-. 11. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing order which is contrary to the facts and law. ASSESSMENT YEAR

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

10. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Provision for Development expenses of Rs. 2,29,37,07,973/-. 11. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing order which is contrary to the facts and law. ASSESSMENT YEAR

M/S ALLIANCE BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Alliance Builders & Asst.Commissioner Of V. Contractors Ltd Income Tax, Central Circle-2 C/O 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Allen Ganj, Kanpur. Pan:Aaeca8217A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 11 2024 O R D E R

37,531/-, being book profit, under the provision of Section 115JB of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, this case was referred for special audit under section 142(2A) of the Act vide order dated 21.03.2014. The Page 3 of 33 assessee agitated against the aforesaid order dated 21.03.2014 in Writ Petition filed in Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad