INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

section 11(2). Arguing on the\nissue of Form No. 10, the ld. Special Counsel argued that matters that had to be\nexamined was whether the application was genuine or not? Whether the funds have\nbeen applied for specified purposes? Because the allowability was based on\napplication of income. On the issue of infrastructure fund, Vambay fund and\nrevolving fund

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

section 11(2). Arguing on the\nissue of Form No. 10, the ld. Special Counsel argued that matters that had to be\nexamined was whether the application was genuine or not? Whether the funds have\nbeen applied for specified purposes? Because the allowability was based on\napplication of income. On the issue of infrastructure fund, Vambay fund and\nrevolving fund

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

section 11(2). Arguing on the\nissue of Form No. 10, the ld. Special Counsel argued that matters that had to be\nexamined was whether the application was genuine or not? Whether the funds have\nbeen applied for specified purposes? Because the allowability was based on\napplication of income. On the issue of infrastructure fund, Vambay fund and\nrevolving fund

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

section 11, did not consider the findings of the AO with\nrespect to section 11(2), section 13(1)(d) and section 13(3). He has pointed out that\nonce the ld. CIT(A) had held that the income of the assessee should be computed in\nthe manner specified in section 11, taking into account information given in the\naudit

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (FORMELY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),LUCKNOW vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result all six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

section of society for \ncommercial area as certain percentage has to be made available for local shops and \nshops for barber, vegetable vendor etc. which are disposed-off through lottery \nsystem. It is this leftover part from 5% of saleable area that is sold though auction. \nFurthermore, the disposal of residential properties is done by an Authority as per \nthe

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

section of society for \ncommercial area as certain percentage has to be made available for local shops and \nshops for barber, vegetable vendor etc. which are disposed-off through lottery \nsystem. It is this leftover part from 5% of saleable area that is sold though auction. \nFurthermore, the disposal of residential properties is done by an Authority as per \nthe

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

section of society for \ncommercial area as certain percentage has to be made available for local shops and \nshops for barber, vegetable vendor etc. which are disposed-off through lottery \nsystem. It is this leftover part from 5% of saleable area that is sold though auction. \nFurthermore, the disposal of residential properties is done by an Authority as per \nthe

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

disallowances to\nthe extent of Rs. 59619661/-\nremaining deduction of Rs.\n3164146/- is sustained\nconsidering the earlier order of\nCIT(A) dt. 19/12/2023.\n[Para 8.16 Page 102]\nAppeal filed by\nAssessee\nITA\n17/LKW/2024 &\nCO1/LKW/2025\n07.01.2025 along\nwith other legal\ngrounds.\n(A.2) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal\n(\"ITAT\" for short), separate paper

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

disallowances to\nthe extent of Rs.59619661/-\nremaining deduction of Rs.\n3164146/- is sustained\nconsidering the earlier order of\nCIT(A) dt. 19/12/2023.\n[Para 8.16 Page 102]\nAppeal filed by\nAssessee\nITA\n17/LKW/2024 &\nCO1/LKW/2025\n07.01.2025 along\nwith other legal\ngrounds.\n\n(A.2) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal\n(\"ITAT\" for short), separate paper

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

In the result, appeals vide I

disallowances to\nthe extent of Rs.59619661/-\nremaining deduction of Rs.\n3164146/- is sustained\nconsidering the earlier order of\nCIT(A) dt. 19/12/2023.\n[Para 8.16 Page 102]\nAppeal filed by\nAssessee ITA\n17/LKW/2024 &\nCO1/LKW/2025\n07.01.2025 along\nwith other legal\ngrounds.\n\n(A.2) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal\n(\"ITAT\" for short), separate paper

M/S. TIRUBALA INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-VI, KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Tirubala International Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of C-7, Panki Industrial Area, Vs. Income Tax, Range-Vi, Kanpur Kanpur, U.P. Pan:Aaect2086J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Vikas Garg, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Dcit-6, Kanpur Passed On 19.12.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ao, Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Addition Of Rs. 29,164/- On Account Of Late Payment Towards Employees Contribution To Esi. 2. That The Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate That The Payment Of Rs.29,164 Towards Employee'S Contribution To Provident Fund Was Made Before The "Due Date" Of Filing Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 Therefore There Could Not Be Any Addition Of The Aforesaid Amount To The Returned Income. 3. That The Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate That The Due Date As Mentioned In 36(1) (Va) Is To Be Read In Conjunction With Section 43B(B)

disallowed, in the light of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). 3 A.Y. 2014-15 M/s Tirubala International Pvt. Ltd. In response, it was submitted that these payments would not fall within the scope of, ‘fee for technical services’ for which tax was liable to be deducted under section 195 r.w.s. 90(2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KANPUR vs. M.K.U PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

2 CO No.23/LKW/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 M.K.U. Pvt. Ltd. assessee’s condonation petition and affidavit, the delay in filing the cross objection is condoned. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return of income on 30.09.2011 declaring a book profit of Rs.5,20,24,121/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment under section

M/S MODEL EXIM,KANPUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriam/S. Model Exim Pcit (Central) V. 624-C, Defence Colony, 7/81-B, Tilak Nagar, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010. Kanpur. Pan:Aadfm6163H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Smt Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 29 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 11 2024 O R D E R

195 of the IT. Act. In his reply the assessee has stated the disallowance of the commission under section 9(1)(vii) as FTS is not applicable to the facts of the case as per reason given in the reply. In support of his claim he has relied upon the following case laws in his favour: - 1. CIT Vs. Toshoku

M/S ALLIANCE BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Alliance Builders & Asst.Commissioner Of V. Contractors Ltd Income Tax, Central Circle-2 C/O 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Allen Ganj, Kanpur. Pan:Aaeca8217A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 11 2024 O R D E R

195/- u/s 115JB as deemed income suggesting that on the income determined u/s 115JB of the Act was found to higher than the tax worked out on the income determined under the normal provisions of the Act. 4. Vide Para (2) of the notice under section 142(1) dated 26.09.2013, it was specifically required to furnish copy of Audit Report

SRI SAINATH ASSOCIATES,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT-6, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

2,28,960/on the foreign trip of doctors - Assessee had incurred the expenditure on sponsorship of different programs and seminars on different occasions, as the doctors are the major role player in the profit earning process of the assessee — Assessee has established the genuineness of the expenditure and demonstrated its connectivity with the business of the assessee — Disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GONDA vs. M/S COOPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD, BALRAMPUR, BALRAMPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: SH.SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

2)(i)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was submitted that the issue was covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Cooperative Cane Development Union (1973) U.P.T.C. 113 and ITO, Ward-2, ITA Nos.34, 30 & 31/Lkw/2021 Lakhimpur Khiri vs. Cooperative Cane Development Union

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GONDA vs. M/S. CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, BALRAMPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: SH.SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

2)(i)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was submitted that the issue was covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Cooperative Cane Development Union (1973) U.P.T.C. 113 and ITO, Ward-2, ITA Nos.34, 30 & 31/Lkw/2021 Lakhimpur Khiri vs. Cooperative Cane Development Union

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GONDA vs. M/S. CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, BALRAMPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: SH.SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

2)(i)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was submitted that the issue was covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Cooperative Cane Development Union (1973) U.P.T.C. 113 and ITO, Ward-2, ITA Nos.34, 30 & 31/Lkw/2021 Lakhimpur Khiri vs. Cooperative Cane Development Union