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

disallowance was deleted. Purchases were considered genuine as they were supported by bills and payments, with no evidence of recycling of funds.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "80IA", "14A", "143(3)", "143(2)", "148", "139(1)", "139(5

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD.,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. ACIT, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Acit Sitapur/Cpc, V. Limited Income Tax Deptt., C/O Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Bengaluru-560500. Lakhimpur Kheri, U.P.-241001. Pan:Aawfs0887P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26 11 2024

139; or (vi)..... ********* 5.1 The assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80P of the Act falls under provisions of Chapter VIA of the Act. It is a fact that the amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act, enabling disallowance of deduction claimed Chapter VIA of the Act, was made by the Finance Act, 2021, w.e.f

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 The Asstt. Commissioner V. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd Of Income Tax B-9, Vibhuti Khand Central Circle Ii Gomti Nagar Lucnow Lucknow Pan:Aadca5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.19/Lkw/2017 [In Ita No.66/Lkw/2017] Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-9, Vibhuti Khand Income Tax Gomti Nagar Central Circle Ii Lucknow Lucnow Pan:Aadca5639H (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Revenue is in further appeal before this Tribunal against the deletion of disallowance of claim of deduction of Rs.4,68,60,927/- under section 80IA of the Act. 6. The facts relating to the claim of deduction under section 80IA

VIDYUT TRANSMISSION KARMACHARI VETAN BHOGI CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. CPC BANGALORE/ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance has been made merely because the return was filed beyond the due date specified u/s 139(1) accordingly filed u/s 139(4). Copy of acknowledgement for filing of ITR is at page 10 of the Paper book. It is prayed that the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) state as under :- "An incorrect claim if such incorrect claim

SHRAMIK VIKAS SAHKARI SHRRAM SAMVIDA SAMITI LTD.,KANPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 1(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2019-20 Shramik Vikas Sahkari V. The Assessing Officer Shrram Samvida Samiti Ltd, Circle 1(1)(1) 135-K-2, Nankari, Iit Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R

5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The denial of benefit of deduction under Section 80P of the Act in response of belated return is in issue. In the instant case, the return was filed belatedly under Section 139(4) of the Act. While drawing the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, the CPC, Bengaluru has denied

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowed despite the assessee having been engaged in the education activities, duly registered under section 12A of he Act. (ii) That the above exemption has been denied invoking the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, without giving any specific findings in this regard. Page 18 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 4.1 Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowed despite the assessee having been engaged in the education activities, duly registered under section 12A of he Act. (ii) That the above exemption has been denied invoking the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, without giving any specific findings in this regard. Page 18 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 4.1 Section

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNIAN, LTD. ,LAKHIPUR KHERI vs. ITO WARD-3(4), LAKHIPUR-1

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

5: The appellant has raised five grounds of appeal. However, the main issue raised by the appellant is the disallowance of deduction u/s 80P by the AO, - CPC, Bengaluru which has been challenged by the appellant on the following grounds. (i)The Return of Income was not filed within the due date. (ii)The disallowance u/s 80(P) was outside

CO-OP-CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION GOLA,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. ITO RANGE-3(4), LAKHIMPUR KHERI-1

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaco-Op Cane Development The Income Tax Officer, V. Union Gola Range-3(4) C/O Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Lakhimpur Kheri-262701. Lakhimpur Kheri-262701, Up. Pan:Aaaac1960A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 10 2024 O R D E R

5 of 8 upheld the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) wherein the disallowance u/s 80P of the Act was upheld for the reason that the return of income was filed beyond the due date as specified in section 139

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

5(3)(1) in ITA. No.454/Bang/2021 held as under: - “16. I have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions. I agree with the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the Assessee and hold that (i) Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form No.67

MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,KANPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowing the claim made by the assessee- society under section 11 of the Act. 4.4 Aggrieved by the orders of the CPC, Bangalore, the assessee preferred appeals for these three years, i.e., assessment years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The submission of the assessee before the Ld. First Appellate Authority was that

MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,KANPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowing the claim made by the assessee- society under section 11 of the Act. 4.4 Aggrieved by the orders of the CPC, Bangalore, the assessee preferred appeals for these three years, i.e., assessment years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The submission of the assessee before the Ld. First Appellate Authority was that

MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURE DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,KANPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowing the claim made by the assessee- society under section 11 of the Act. 4.4 Aggrieved by the orders of the CPC, Bangalore, the assessee preferred appeals for these three years, i.e., assessment years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The submission of the assessee before the Ld. First Appellate Authority was that

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

disallowance had been made. It was further submitted that in the case of the assessee, a search and seizure proceeding had been carried out under section 132 of the Act on 18.09.2014. Subsequent to the search proceedings, the assessee had filed an application for settlement before the Hon’ble Settlement Commission on 5.01.2017, which had been admitted

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

5) is also\nagainst law.\n9. While passing order treating the Trust as business entity Ld. A. O. was under\nobligation to allow deduction under section 80G. However, no such deduction is\nallowed.\n10. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned authorities below have\nerred, both on facts and in law, in charging interest under Sections 234A

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

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