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

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

disallowed the accumulation of Rs.\n22,00,00,000/- under section 11(2) of the Act and furthermore added back the\nsame of Rs.14,96,91,583/- claimed as purchase cost of fixed assets and application\nof income. However, he thereafter allowed a deduction of Rs.1,55, 15,994/-, being\nthe depreciation on the same. The ld. AO also observed

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

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

disallowing the assessee the benefit of section 11. However, the ld. AO concluded from the claim of deduction under section 80IB, that the assessee was engaged in business activity and therefore, on these grounds, he held that the exemption under section 11 was not allowable. He also held that the claim of section 80IB was also not allowable firstly because

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

disallowing the assessee the benefit of section 11. However, the ld. AO\nconcluded from the claim of deduction under section 80IB, that the assessee was\nengaged in business activity and therefore, on these grounds, he held that the\nexemption under section 11 was not allowable. He also held that the claim of section\n80IB was also not allowable firstly because

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

disallowing the assessee the benefit of section 11. However, the ld. AO\nconcluded from the claim of deduction under section 80IB, that the assessee was\nengaged in business activity and therefore, on these grounds, he held that the\nexemption under section 11 was not allowable. He also held that the claim of section\n80IB was also not allowable firstly because

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

disallowing the assessee the benefit of section 11. However, the ld. AO\nconcluded from the claim of deduction under section 80IB, that the assessee was\nengaged in business activity and therefore, on these grounds, he held that the\nexemption under section 11 was not allowable. He also held that the claim of section\n80IB was also not allowable firstly because

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

disallowing the assessee the benefit of section 11. However, the ld. AO\nconcluded from the claim of deduction under section 80IB, that the assessee was\nengaged in business activity and therefore, on these grounds, he held that the\nexemption under section 11 was not allowable. He also held that the claim of section\n80IB was also not allowable firstly because

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

disallowing the assessee the benefit of section 11. However, the ld. AO\nconcluded from the claim of deduction under section 80IB, that the assessee was\nengaged in business activity and therefore, on these grounds, he held that the\nexemption under section 11 was not allowable. He also held that the claim of section\n80IB was also not allowable firstly because

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

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

2) of the\nAct is itself time barred rendering the order of assessment bad\nin law and liable to be quashed.\n\n5.\nBECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,\nthe CIT (A) has passed the order without providing the\nassessee with a due and proper opportunity of hearing and\ntherefore the impugned order deserves

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

UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

2(24)(xviii) read with Section 145B(3) as\nwell as ICDS, and then the corresponding expenditures actually incurred whether\nby the appellant or by the executing agencies as the case may be for the specified\nobjects.\n6. 20. From the Income & Expenditure Account furnished by the appellant during\nthe course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the surplus

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)

2(24)(xviii) read with Section 145B(3) as\nwell as ICDS, and then the corresponding expenditures actually incurred whether\nby the appellant or by the executing agencies as the case may be for the specified\nobjects.\n\n6. 20. From the Income & Expenditure Account furnished by the appellant during\nthe course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted 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 on account of interest on unsecured loan of Rs.1,71,382/-. 7. That the assessment completed by learned assessing officer is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful. 8. That the learned assessing officer has erred in not providing proper and adequate opportunity to the appellant.” I.T.A. No.58/Lkw/2022 “1. That the notice issued and assessment completed under section 153A

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 on account of interest on unsecured loan of Rs.1,71,382/-. 7. That the assessment completed by learned assessing officer is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful. 8. That the learned assessing officer has erred in not providing proper and adequate opportunity to the appellant.” I.T.A. No.58/Lkw/2022 “1. That the notice issued and assessment completed under section 153A

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 on account of interest on unsecured loan of Rs.1,71,382/-. 7. That the assessment completed by learned assessing officer is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful. 8. That the learned assessing officer has erred in not providing proper and adequate opportunity to the appellant.” I.T.A. No.58/Lkw/2022 “1. That the notice issued and assessment completed under section 153A

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

71,819/-. The Assessing Officer has taken this figure as the starting point for computation of the assessee's income. This figure is inclusive of the provision for income tax of Rs.30,00,000/-. Accordingly, any further adding of the amount, would amount to a double addition and consequently double taxation of the same amount. Therefore, since the Assessing Officer

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

71,123/- by making certain additions. 4. Later on, the case was set-aside as per provision of Sec. 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 28.03.2018 (F. No. Pr. CII-2/Tech/Lko/263/AY 2013-14/UPSCIDC/2017-18/1131) OF THE Ld. Pr CIT-2, Lucknow. Accordingly, notices u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 961 along with

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT, LUCKNOW

71,819/-. The Assessing Officer has taken this figure as the\nstarting point for computation of the assessee's income. This figure is inclusive of\nthe provision for income tax of Rs.30,00,000/-. Accordingly, any further adding of\nthe amount, would amount to a double addition and consequently double taxation of\nthe same amount. Therefore, since the Assessing Officer

M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, ITA No. 374/LKW/2017 is partly allowed while ITA No

section 153C also and accordingly he held that ground nos. 1 and 2 were infructuous and he treated them as dismissed. On the issue of disallowance of deduction of Rs. 11,71