MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the authority by drawing mis-conclusion of section 13(3) and section 154

DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MORADABAD

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the authority by drawing mis-conclusion of section 13(3) and section 154

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the authority by drawing mis-conclusion of section 13(3) and section 154

DINESH CHAND JAIN,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Dinesh Chand Jain, Vs. Dy. Cit, 7/189, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur- Central Circle-1, Kanpur 280002, U.P. Pan: Adbpj2732Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Add Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.04.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1.1 Because The Id. "Cit(A)" Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Withdrawing The Refund Of Interest Amounting To Rs. 8,20,163/-, Paid To The Assessee U/S 244A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On Excess Amount Of Self-Assessment Tax Paid U/S 140A Of The Act. 1.2 Because The View Taken By Id. "Cit(A)" While Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer Is Based On Misinterpretation Of The Provisions Of Clause (B) Of Sub-Section (1) Of Section 244A Of The Act, As Applicable At The Relevant Point Of Time. 2. Because, In Any Case & Without Prejudice To The Grounds Hereinfore, While Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Withdrawing The Interest Paid To The Assessee U/S 244A Of The Act, The Ld. "Cit(A)" Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Of Payment Of Interest On Excess Amount Paid U/S 140A Was Debatable In Nature & It Could Not Have Been Decided By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 154 Of The Act As The Same Did Not Constitute A Mistake Apparent From The Record.

disallow interest under section 244A of the Act on the refund of self-assessment tax wherein the issue was a debatable one and that the ld. AO could not have invoked provisions under section 154

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)", "251", "194Q", "69C", "80AB", "80A", "80C", "80U", "10(34)", "10(33)", "154

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

disallowance has been made arbitrarily by application of Rule\n8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii).\n3. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that as per section 144(2) of the Act,\nAssessing Officer is duty bound to record his/her dissatisfaction on correctness\nof claim of assessee before invoking the provision of section 144. As it is\nevident

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

A P S ACADEMY,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-IV(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoorassessment Year 2008-09 M/S A.P.S. Academy, The Income Tax Officer, 239, Leela Building, Vs. Ward –Iv(I), Senani Vihar, Lucknow Raibareilly Road, Lucknow Pan – Aaata 7665H (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 154 and upheld by the CIT(A) is bad in law and be quashed. 03. Because on a proper consideration of facts and circumstances of the case it would be found that when the entire expenditure as claimed by the assesses on software development has been disallowed

M/S SARASWATI SHEET GRAH,KANPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

disallowance arbitrarily made by the Ld. A.O., CPC Bangalore, amounting to Rs. I0,02,905/- claimed by the appellant under section 80IB vide Intimation under section 143(l)of the income Tax Act, 1961, and the Ld. A.O. CPC, Bangalore has also erred in law and on facts in rejecting the Rectification Application dated 26.02.2020 filed under section 154

M/S SARASWATI SHEET GRAH,KANPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

disallowance arbitrarily made by the Ld. A.O., CPC Bangalore, amounting to Rs. I0,02,905/- claimed by the appellant under section 80IB vide Intimation under section 143(l)of the income Tax Act, 1961, and the Ld. A.O. CPC, Bangalore has also erred in law and on facts in rejecting the Rectification Application dated 26.02.2020 filed under section 154

M/S SATISH COLD STORAGE,KANPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE1(1)(1), KANPUR, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowance made by the assessing authority in the assessee's case under section 143(l) of the Act was not proper? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding Ihat the assessing authority was required to rectify the mistake under section 154

M/S SATISH COLD STORAGE,KANPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE1(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowance made by the assessing authority in the assessee's case under section 143(l) of the Act was not proper? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding Ihat the assessing authority was required to rectify the mistake under section 154

M/S PRAMOD TELECOM PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, in ITA. No

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

disallowance on account of gratuity in the body of the assessment order, the ld. AO continued to perpetuate the demand created on this account in the proceedings under section 143(1)(a). 7. Aggrieved by this order under section 143(3), the assessee filed an application under section 154

M/S PRAMOD TELECOM PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, in ITA. No

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

disallowance on account of gratuity in the body of the assessment order, the ld. AO continued to perpetuate the demand created on this account in the proceedings under section 143(1)(a). 7. Aggrieved by this order under section 143(3), the assessee filed an application under section 154

PRAVEEN SAXENA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-6(1), LUCKNOW-NEW

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Praveen Saxena V. Income Tax Officer 6(1) Flat No.G-01, Tower-J Lucknow - New Shalimar Gallant Vigyanpuri, Mahanagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ajpps5818N (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 07.02.2024, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 09.01.2021, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.22,57,120/- & Also Claimed Relief Under Section 90 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) For A Sum Of Rs.3,48,632/- Being Foreign Tax Credit. The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Processed The Return Under Section 143(1) Of The Act & Rejected The Relief Of Rs.3,48,632/- Claimed By The Assessee Under Section 90 Of The

disallowance of Foreign Tax Credit in case of delay in filing of Form 67 and further that filing of Form 67 was not mandatory, but a directory requirement. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that in the said order of the Tribunal, it was also ordained that proceedings under section 154

MR. GULREJ ANSARI,UNNAO vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), UNNAO-NEW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowance of Rs.15,99,983/- being made by CPC overlooking the decision of the Apex Court itself constitutes the mistake apparent on record, the same should have been suomoto rectified by CPC itself, and that having not been done, inspite the assessee having been moved the petition under section 154

MR. GULREJ ANSARI,UNNAO vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), UNNAO NEW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowance of Rs.15,99,983/- being made by CPC overlooking the decision of the Apex Court itself constitutes the mistake apparent on record, the same should have been suomoto rectified by CPC itself, and that having not been done, inspite the assessee having been moved the petition under section 154

M/S SWARUP CHEMICALS PVT. LTD,BAREILLY vs. DCIT--1, BAREILLY

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

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

section 154 and not accepting the original return filed. 3. The Ld. CITA) has erred in law as well as on facts by confirming the order of the CPC of disallowance

M/S SWARUP CHEMICALS PVT. LTD,BAREILLY vs. DCIT-1, BAREILLY, BAREILLY

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

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

section 154 and not accepting the original return filed. 3. The Ld. CITA) has erred in law as well as on facts by confirming the order of the CPC of disallowance