M/S BEEAAR AUTOWHEELS INDIA PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ITO WARD 1(3), LUCKNOW-NEW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2020-21 M/S Beeaar Autowheels India V. The Income Tax Officer Pvt Ltd Ward-1(3) 9, Premier Building, Shahnazaf Aaykar Bhawan, 5, Ashok Road, Lucknow-226001. Nagar, Lucknow-New, Uttar Pradesh-226001. Pan:Aadcb8897L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri Deepak Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 08 2025 O R D E R

4. Because on a proper consideration of the facts and reading of the provisions of section 36(1)(va) as interpreted by the Apex Court, time and again, it would be found that the contribution to EPF & ESIC are allowable whenever paid but before the filing of the income tax return, the order passed by the CIT(A) is contrary

DY. C.I.T., RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2011-12

4) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2), the Board may, by general or special order, and subject to such conditions, restrictions or limitations as may be specified therein,— (a) authorise any Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Director or Director to perform such functions of any other income-tax authority

DY. C.I.T., RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2011-12

4) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2), the Board may, by general or special order, and subject to such conditions, restrictions or limitations as may be specified therein,— (a) authorise any Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Director or Director to perform such functions of any other income-tax authority

U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-VI(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2011-12

4) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2), the Board may, by general or special order, and subject to such conditions, restrictions or limitations as may be specified therein,— (a) authorise any Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Director or Director to perform such functions of any other income-tax authority

DY. C.I.T., RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2011-12

4) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2), the Board may, by general or special order, and subject to such conditions, restrictions or limitations as may be specified therein,— (a) authorise any Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Director or Director to perform such functions of any other income-tax authority

U.P.COOPERATIVE FEDERATIONLTD,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(3), , LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.260/Lkw/2023 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 U.P. Cooperative Federation V. Income Tax Officer-2(3) Ltd Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Pcf Building, 32, Station Road, 57, Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow-226004. Hazratganj, Lucknow- 226001. Pan:Aaaau0373P अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri D. D. Chopra, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22 09 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 19 12 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

4. Because learned CliT(Appeals) while upholding the Assessment order on the ground of disallowance of deduction u/s 80P of the Act has failed to appreciate that Appellant has been enjoying the benefit of section 80P(2) and the said deduction is not dependent on the quantification of claim made as any addition made to the income specified

SH. SUKHVINDER SINGH,KANPUR vs. PR CIT, CENTRAL, KANPUR

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

120. It may be noted that Order of assessment passed with the approval of JOT under section 153D of the I.T. Act, 1961 could not be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Ld. D.R. has, however, relied upon the Order of ITAT, Panaji Bench, but, has not explained whether the Judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High

SH. SUKHVINDER SINGH,KANPUR vs. PR CIT, CENTRAL, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

120. It may be noted that Order of assessment passed with the approval of JOT under section 153D of the I.T. Act, 1961 could not be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Ld. D.R. has, however, relied upon the Order of ITAT, Panaji Bench, but, has not explained whether the Judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High

INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUCKNOW vs. RAJEEV KUMAR KAPOOR, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2021-22 Income Tax Officer, vs. Rajeev Kumar Kapoor, 306, Arohi Lucknow Trade Centre, Chowk, Lucknow- 226003 PAN: AHQPK1081L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue by: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR Date of hearing: 03.11.2025 Date of pronouncement

MOHD. SALEEM GULAM RASOOL QURESHI,LUCKNOW vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowances Page 2 of 4 made by the Learned Assessing Officer without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. A. Rejection of Books of Account 2. The Ld. CITA) erred in confirming the rejection of books of account u/s.145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that your appellant produced audited books of accounts

BHAWANI DEVELOPERS,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW-NEW

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid\ndirections

B) In this case assessment order dated 27/03/2023 was passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 147 of the Act read with section 144B of the Act,\nwhereby the assessee's total income was determined at Rs.27,26,42,787/-\n(rounded off to Rs.27,26,42,790/-). The relevant portion of the aforesaid\nassessment order is reproduced as under

ASTT. COMMISIONER 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

4. However, this condition created some difficulties where the primary object was general public utility, but some incidental activities involved an activity for profit. Under the circumstance, there was an amendment to this sub-section vide Finance Act, 1983 which removed the words “not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit”. The effect of this amendment was that

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

4. However, this condition created some difficulties where the primary object was general public utility, but some incidental activities involved an activity for profit. Under the circumstance, there was an amendment to this sub-section vide Finance Act, 1983 which removed the words “not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit”. The effect of this amendment was that

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

4. However, this condition created some difficulties where the primary object was general public utility, but some incidental activities involved an activity for profit. Under the circumstance, there was an amendment to this sub-section vide Finance Act, 1983 which removed the words “not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit”. The effect of this amendment was that

ASTT. COMMISIONER 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

4. However, this condition created some difficulties where the primary object was general public utility, but some incidental activities involved an activity for profit. Under the circumstance, there was an amendment to this sub-section vide Finance Act, 1983 which removed the words “not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit”. The effect of this amendment was that

ASTT. COMMISIONER 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

4. However, this condition created some difficulties where the primary object was general public utility, but some incidental activities involved an activity for profit. Under the circumstance, there was an amendment to this sub-section vide Finance Act, 1983 which removed the words “not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit”. The effect of this amendment was that

ASTT. COMMISIONER 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

4. However, this condition created some difficulties where the primary object was general public utility, but some incidental activities involved an activity for profit. Under the circumstance, there was an amendment to this sub-section vide Finance Act, 1983 which removed the words “not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit”. The effect of this amendment was that

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

4. However, this condition created some difficulties where the primary object was general public utility, but some incidental activities involved an activity for profit. Under the circumstance, there was an amendment to this sub-section vide Finance Act, 1983 which removed the words “not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit”. The effect of this amendment was that