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

7(1) Ground of appeal number 4 is as under- 4. That the Ld. A.O. was wrong in making of addition of Rs.6,95,21,880/- on account of Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) to the total income of the assessee of the following grounds :- (a) The Ld. A.O. was wrong in holding that Section 194C

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)

disallowed and why the net profit shown in its profit not be brought to tax. 4. In response, the assessee submitted that its activities were of charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15), was not applicable in its case because its aims were coordinated and planned development of the city of Moradabad. Its objects were contained

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)

disallowed and why the net profit shown in its profit not be brought to tax. 4. In response, the assessee submitted that its activities were of charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15), was not applicable in its case because its aims were coordinated and planned development of the city of Moradabad. Its objects were contained

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)

disallowed and why the net profit shown in its profit not be brought to tax. 4. In response, the assessee submitted that its activities were of charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15), was not applicable in its case because its aims were coordinated and planned development of the city of Moradabad. Its objects were contained

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)

disallowed and why the net profit shown in its profit not be brought to tax. 4. In response, the assessee submitted that its activities were of charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15), was not applicable in its case because its aims were coordinated and planned development of the city of Moradabad. Its objects were contained

PUSHPENDRA SINGH,RAEBARELI vs. DCIT CIRCLE,, FAIZABAD

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Pushpendra Singh V. Dcit Circle, 680, Amar Nagar, Raebareli Faizabad/National E- (U.P)-229001. Assessment Centre Delhi Pan:Axbps1905L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

194C of the Act. The total addition made by the AD as part of all these grounds in Rs.30,47,006 consisting of 03 disallowances namely labour charges Rs.10.18,789, freight and machine expenses Rs.17.97,173 & outward job work expenses Rs 2,31,744 All the disallowances are 30% of the total expenses claimed by the appellant. These three heads

D.C.I.T., RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. SHRI MANOJ GUPTA, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the department and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Manoj Gupta Acit, Range-3 V. B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, 27/2, P.K. Complex, Raja Lucknow-226024. Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Range-3 V. Manoj Gupta 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, Marg, P. K. Complex, Lucknow- Lucknow-226024. 226001. Pan: Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: Both These Appeals Arise Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-1, Lucknow [Hereinafter Referred As To “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred As To “The Act”] Dated 18.09.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. While Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Ita. No.444/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Department. As The Issues Involved In Both These Appeals Are Similar & Arise Out Of The Same Orders, The Appeals Are Taken Up For Disposal Together. The Grounds Of Appeal In Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Are As Under: -

194C of the Act was being received by the assessee. The assessee had filed all the VAT return for the relevant period and furnished copies of orders passed by the VAT Department for the year under consideration as well as previous year. Therefore, the purchase of materials and such expenses in the year under consideration and past year could

SHRI MANOJ GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the department and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Manoj Gupta Acit, Range-3 V. B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, 27/2, P.K. Complex, Raja Lucknow-226024. Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Range-3 V. Manoj Gupta 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, Marg, P. K. Complex, Lucknow- Lucknow-226024. 226001. Pan: Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: Both These Appeals Arise Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-1, Lucknow [Hereinafter Referred As To “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred As To “The Act”] Dated 18.09.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. While Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Ita. No.444/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Department. As The Issues Involved In Both These Appeals Are Similar & Arise Out Of The Same Orders, The Appeals Are Taken Up For Disposal Together. The Grounds Of Appeal In Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Are As Under: -

194C of the Act was being received by the assessee. The assessee had filed all the VAT return for the relevant period and furnished copies of orders passed by the VAT Department for the year under consideration as well as previous year. Therefore, the purchase of materials and such expenses in the year under consideration and past year could