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

In the result, appeals vide I

disallowed.\n\nPrincipal Commissioner of Income-tax V. Delhi International Airport (P.)\nLtd [2022] 143 taxmann.com 209 (SC) Section 14A of the Income

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

209/-) should be disallowed instead of disallowance that was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Without prejudice to this argument, it was submitted that the entire amount of employees contribution had been transferred to the Provident Fund Commissioner on 29.11.2016 after registering the EPF with the Provident Fund Commissioner on 05.08.2015. Accordingly, it was prayed that deduction may kindly

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

209/-) should be disallowed instead of disallowance that\nwas confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Without prejudice to this argument, it was\nsubmitted that the entire amount of employees contribution had been transferred to\nthe Provident Fund Commissioner on 29.11.2016 after registering the EPF with the\nProvident Fund Commissioner on 05.08.2015. Accordingly, it was prayed that\ndeduction may kindly

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

209/-) should be disallowed instead of disallowance that\nwas confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Without prejudice to this argument, it was\nsubmitted that the entire amount of employees contribution had been transferred to\nthe Provident Fund Commissioner on 29.11.2016 after registering the EPF with the\nProvident Fund Commissioner on 05.08.2015. Accordingly, it was prayed that\ndeduction may kindly

SHAKUN SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 4(1), LUCKNOW

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

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

disallowance of Rs.2,92,440/- (for Assessment Year 2018-19) and Rs.3,84,030/- ( for Assessment Year 209-10) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution to PF / ESI invoking the provisions of section

SHAKUN SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 4(1), LUCKNOW

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

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

disallowance of Rs.2,92,440/- (for Assessment Year 2018-19) and Rs.3,84,030/- ( for Assessment Year 209-10) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution to PF / ESI invoking the provisions of section

ACIT CIRCLE 3, LUCKNOW vs. RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 112 To 114/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2015-16 To 2017-18 Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Vs. Dcit Bank Ltd P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. 226001. Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan:Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) A.Y.2016-17 Acit Circle-3 Vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh Ltd Kar Bhawan, Lucknow Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan: Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Addl. Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Four Appeals Have Been Have Been Filed For The Assessment Years 2015 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18 By The Assessee & Revenue Ssessee & Revenue Against The Respective Orders Of The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024. While The Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, The Revenue 18, The Revenue

209/-) should be disallowed instead of disallowance that was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Without prejudice to this argument, it was submitted that the entire amount of employees contribution had been transferred to the Provident Fund Commissioner on 29.11.2016 after registering the EPF with the Provident Fund Commissioner on 05.08.2015. Accordingly, it was prayed that deduction may kindly

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowances of Rs. 2,57,43,209/-, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal against original order. 2019-20 68,80,79,147 4,52,65,423 6.58 11% 7% 2020-21 1,59,98,27,836 10,07,00,526 6.29 11% 7% 2021-22 1,68,08,35,131 17,03,38,176 10.13 11% 10.13% Addition on extra

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowances of Rs. 2,57,43,209/-, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal against original order. 2019-20 68,80,79,147 4,52,65,423 6.58 11% 7% 2020-21 1,59,98,27,836 10,07,00,526 6.29 11% 7% 2021-22 1,68,08,35,131 17,03,38,176 10.13 11% 10.13% Addition on extra

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowances of Rs. 2,57,43,209/-, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal against original order. 2019-20 68,80,79,147 4,52,65,423 6.58 11% 7% 2020-21 1,59,98,27,836 10,07,00,526 6.29 11% 7% 2021-22 1,68,08,35,131 17,03,38,176 10.13 11% 10.13% Addition on extra

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

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

209/- which was shown in the balance sheet and out of which the assessee had written back Rs.4.78 crores as being not required and rest of the balance of Rs.1,12,00,000/- was shown in the balance sheet and AO without appreciating the system of accounting made the addition of Rs.1.12 crores which is factually incorrect

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

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

209/- which was shown in the balance sheet and out of which the assessee had written back Rs.4.78 crores as being not required and rest of the balance of Rs.1,12,00,000/- was shown in the balance sheet and AO without appreciating the system of accounting made the addition of Rs.1.12 crores which is factually incorrect

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

209/-, Ld.\nCIT(A) allowed the\nappeal against original\norder.\n23 \n2019-20\n68,80,79,147\n4,52,65,423\n6.58\n11%\n7%\n2020-21\n1,59,98,27,836\n10,07,00,526\n6.29\n11%\n7%\nAddition on extra profit\ndeleted.\n2021-22\n1,68,08,35,131\n17,03,38,176\n10.13\n11%\n10.13%\n2022

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

209/- for Assessment Year 2012-13, but filed return showing income nil. Similarly, for Assessment Year 2013-2014 net profit of Rs.83,39,876/- was shown as nil income. CIT (E) also observed that GNIDA was claiming exemption under Section 10(20) of Act, 1961, but simultaneously sought registration under Section 12AA of Act, 1961. There was no reason

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

209/- for Assessment Year 2012-13, but filed return showing income nil. Similarly, for Assessment Year 2013-2014 net profit of Rs.83,39,876/- was shown as nil income. CIT (E) also observed that GNIDA was claiming exemption under Section 10(20) of Act, 1961, but simultaneously sought registration under Section 12AA of Act, 1961. There was no reason

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

209/- for Assessment Year 2012-13, but filed return showing income nil. Similarly, for Assessment Year 2013-2014 net profit of Rs.83,39,876/- was shown as nil income. CIT (E) also observed that GNIDA was claiming exemption under Section 10(20) of Act, 1961, but simultaneously sought registration under Section 12AA of Act, 1961. There was no reason

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

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there is no parameter that

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

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there is no parameter that