DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT\nAND\nSHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)

disallowed and added back to the surplus of income\nover expenditure of the year. On facts and in law, action of the AO is found to be\ntenable and hence does not warrant any interference thereon. Appellant's Grounds\non this issue are dismissed.\n\n6. 23. On the issue of addition of a sum of Rs.334

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)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

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)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

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)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

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)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

24,59,203/-. The disallowance of exemption U/s 11 as well as holding the income as taxable business income is again in utter disregard to authoritative judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority [(2013) 38 taxmann.com 246 (All. HC)], Moradabad Development Authority [ITA No. 3 of 2017 dt. 03.05.2017] [Lucknow bench, Alld

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

24,59,203/-. The disallowance of exemption U/s 11 \n3\nas well as holding the income as taxable business income is again in utter disregard to \nauthoritative judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Lucknow \nDevelopment Authority [(2013) 38 taxmann.com 246 (All. HC)], Moradabad Development \nAuthority [ITA No. 3 of 2017 dt. 03.05.2017] [Lucknow bench, Alld

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

24,59,203/-. The disallowance of exemption U/s 11\n3\nas well as holding the income as taxable business income is again in utter disregard to \nauthoritative judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Lucknow \nDevelopment Authority [(2013) 38 taxmann.com 246 (All. HC)], Moradabad Development \nAuthority [ITA No. 3 of 2017 dt. 03.05.2017] [Lucknow bench, Alld

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

24,59,203/-. The disallowance of exemption U/s 11 \nas well as holding the income as taxable business income is again in utter disregard to \nauthoritative judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Lucknow \nDevelopment Authority [(2013) 38 taxmann.com 246 (All. HC)], Moradabad Development \nAuthority [ITA No. 3 of 2017 dt. 03.05.2017] [Lucknow bench, Alld

SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

iv) Any payment made by a company on purchase of its own shares from\na shareholder in accordance with the provisions of section 77A of the\nCompanies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);\n(v) Any distribution of shares pursuant to a demerger by the resulting\ncompany to the shareholders of the demerged company (whether or not\nthere is a reduction

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

IV of the Act.\nThe Assessing Officer has neither identified any income shown by the\nassessee which does not form part of total income nor the expenditureidentified\nby his goodself, being interest liability on CC Limit, has any nexus to such\ninvestments made by the assessee against which the disallowance has been\nmade. The disallowance has been made arbitrarily

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

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(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act relying upon the information given by the auditor in Form 3CD. As per the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) the following adjustment can be made: “143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section

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)

iv) on account of late deposit of employee contribution to provident fund and ESI while processing the return of income. He reproduced the provisions of section 143(1) and highlighted the fact that expenditure could be disallowed, which was indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return. He moved

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)

iv) on account of late deposit of employee contribution to provident fund and ESI while processing the return of income. He reproduced the provisions of section 143(1) and highlighted the fact that expenditure could be disallowed, which was indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return. He moved

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

24 10 2024 O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 07/02/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [“learned CIT(A)”] for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “(1). That

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

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