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

disallowance irrespective of the fact whether such income has been earned during the financial year or not.” I.T.A. No.485/Lkw/2019 “1. Learned CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.7,35,64,119/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section

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

disallowance irrespective of the fact whether such income has been earned during the financial year or not.” I.T.A. No.485/Lkw/2019 “1. Learned CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.7,35,64,119/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section

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

disallowance irrespective of the fact whether such income has been earned during the financial year or not.” I.T.A. No.485/Lkw/2019 “1. Learned CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.7,35,64,119/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section

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

disallowance irrespective of the fact whether such income has been earned during the financial year or not.” I.T.A. No.485/Lkw/2019 “1. Learned CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.7,35,64,119/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section

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

disallowance irrespective of the fact whether such income has been earned during the financial year or not.” I.T.A. No.485/Lkw/2019 “1. Learned CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.7,35,64,119/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section

ARPIT KUMAR TOMAR,UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Arpit Kumar Tomar Income Tax Officer V. Flat No.B3, B21, Krishna 6(1), Lucknow, Uttar Garden, Sadarpur, Ghaziabad, Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh-201021. Pan:Ajbpt8004B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri V. Balaji, Fca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 02 2025 O R D E R

section 119(2)(b) cannot be faulted.” Page 7 of 14 4.12. Thus, once a specific course of action has been laid down by the competent authority under the Act, it is not open for the subordinate authorities to ignore such procedures. it may be beneficial to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance irrespective of the fact whether any such\nincome has been earned during the financial year or not. Further, Central\nBoard of Direct taxes, in exercise of its power under section 119

M/S S.K. SHOES AND BOOTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KANPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(5), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2018-19

section 43B read with 36(i)(va), paid after the due date but before the filing of the income tax return, which disallowance is contrary to facts, bad in law be deleted. 2. Because the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the contribution towards ESIC & EPF are all expenditure incurred for the purposes of business

SANGRILA NUTRI FOOD PRODUCTS,KANPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(3), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2019-20

119 (Ker). Learned D. R. further submitted that a clarificatory amendment was brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 which is applicable retrospectively, it was prayed that the addition sustained by learned CIT(A) be upheld. I.T.A. No.99/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2019-20 4 4. I have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record

SHIVA NEETI DEVELOPERS,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2014-15 Shiva Neeti Developers V. The Income Tax Officer 3A/185, Azad Nagar Ward 3(4) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Abqfs8644D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.8.2017 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Kanpur For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

disallowing the assessee's claim for deduction under S. 80IB on the ground that the audit report in Form 10CCB was not filed even along with the return of income filed u/s 139(4) . -that s. 139(1) of the Act provides for due dates for filing the return of income. Accordingly, the due date for filing the return

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S PRAG INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Videshri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance of Rs.3,90,698/-, after verifying himself that amounts were in the nature of bad debts. The learned CIT(A) further stated, after verification, that the amount was taken into profit & loss account and the I.T.A. No.660/Lkw/2016 C.O.No.01/Lkw/2017 8 amounts written off were in the nature of bad debts. Accordingly, he deleted the addition. At the time

UDAAN SEWA SAMITI,KANPUR NAGAR vs. CPC BANGLORE, KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Udaan Seva Samiti V. The Cpc 250/4, Juhi Lal Colony Bangalore Kanpur Nagar Uttar Pradesh Tan/Pan:Aaaau7543F (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 23.11.2023, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Mumbai For Assessment Year 2019-20. 3.1 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Society Registered Under Section 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). The Assessee-Society Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Under Section 139(1) On 26.01.2021, Declaring Total Income At Nil. The Assessee-Society Had Claimed Exemption Of Rs.12,97,442/- Relating To The Amount Applied For Charitable & Religious Purposes During The Previous Year. The Central Processing Centre (Cpc) Processed The Return Under Section 143(1) Of The Act

disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee of Rs.12,97,442/-. 2.0 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that Audit Report in Form 10B had been filed after the due date for filing Return of Income. 2.1 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal

GURU KRIPA ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PR. CIT, , BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

119; or\n(d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision\nwhich is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional\nHigh Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any\nother person.\n(2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two\nyears from

UP GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

119/- (iii) Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on estimation basis of Rs.1,65,08,709/- (iv) Disallowance of business expenditure @ 15% of Rs.3,21,25,722/- (v) Disallowance on account of sundry creditors on estimation basis of Rs.3,39,63,767/-. Further, It was submitted that the assessee had not filed any appeal against the assessment order

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

section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act. Since, in this case, the assessee has not sought the permission of the ld. Commissioner for accumulation of funds over and above the 15% statutory deduction allowable to it in the current year, the ld. AO was justified in making the addition and there was no reason

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

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

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