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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

disallowance in terms of the provisions of section 40 of the Act; and that as such, the assessee may claim all his expenditures, except for those clearly covered by some other sections, ITA No.314 & 317/LKW/2017 Page 22

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowed the claim of allocation of depreciation citing the reason that the claim of allocation of depreciated has already been revised as per IT Rules. Sum of Rs.2,21,72,493/- was allocated as per Companies Act, which figure was not correct. Further, the in terms of Rule 18BBB of the IT Rules, the claim of deduction u/s 801A

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

In the result, appeals vide I

disallowed the claim of allocation of depreciation\nciting the reason that the claim of allocation of depreciated has already been\nrevised as per IT Rules. Sum of Rs.2,21,72,493/- was allocated as per Companies\nAct, which figure was not correct. Further, the in terms of Rule 18BBB of the IT\nRules, the claim of deduction u/s 801A

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance of Rs.70,64,782/- on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which

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

22,200/- being disallowances of expenses on\nnon adherence of TDS provision under head TDS @ 30% of expenses of Rs.\n3074000/- where profit is estimated.\n\n3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,000/- being disallowances of expenses\nwhile invoking provision of section

M/S U.P RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. The Dy. Cit Nigam Ltd. Range Vi Visheshwaraiya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Dy. Cit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Range Vi Nigam Ltd. Lucknow Visheshwaraiya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan: Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Department By: Smt. Sheela Chopra, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04 10 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 12 2021 O R D E R

22 ITAT, holding that no addition could be made by disallowing the expenses debited to the contract account; that it was further observed by the ITAT that since the assessee Corporation had already recognized the income on the expenses debited to the contract account as per Government notifications issued from time to time, disallowance of the expenses was not called

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. The Dy. Cit Nigam Ltd. Range Vi Visheshwaraiya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Dy. Cit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Range Vi Nigam Ltd. Lucknow Visheshwaraiya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan: Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Department By: Smt. Sheela Chopra, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04 10 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 12 2021 O R D E R

22 ITAT, holding that no addition could be made by disallowing the expenses debited to the contract account; that it was further observed by the ITAT that since the assessee Corporation had already recognized the income on the expenses debited to the contract account as per Government notifications issued from time to time, disallowance of the expenses was not called

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. COMMERCIAL ENGINEERS & BODY BUILDERS CO. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowance under section 14A. He, accordingly, prayed that the addition of Rs.2,22,870/- is liable to be deleted. ITA No.657

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. COMMERCIAL ENGINEERS & BODY BUILDERS CO. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowance under section 14A. He, accordingly, prayed that the addition of Rs.2,22,870/- is liable to be deleted. ITA No.657

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 14A of the Act, amounting to Rs.2,56,56,447/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the aforesaid amount holding that this amount represented interest expenses in relation to making investments, income from which would not be includable in the assessee’s hand. In the impugned appellate order, the learned CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid addition after considering the assessee

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 14A of the Act, amounting to Rs.2,56,56,447/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the aforesaid amount holding that this amount represented interest expenses in relation to making investments, income from which would not be includable in the assessee’s hand. In the impugned appellate order, the learned CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid addition after considering the assessee

DCIT, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 14A of the Act, amounting to Rs.2,56,56,447/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the aforesaid amount holding that this amount represented interest expenses in relation to making investments, income from which would not be includable in the assessee’s hand. In the impugned appellate order, the learned CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid addition after considering the assessee

U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-VI, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 14A of the Act, amounting to Rs.2,56,56,447/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the aforesaid amount holding that this amount represented interest expenses in relation to making investments, income from which would not be includable in the assessee’s hand. In the impugned appellate order, the learned CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid addition after considering the assessee

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 14A of the Act, amounting to Rs.2,56,56,447/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the aforesaid amount holding that this amount represented interest expenses in relation to making investments, income from which would not be includable in the assessee’s hand. In the impugned appellate order, the learned CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid addition after considering the assessee

VIDYUT TRANSMISSION KARMACHARI VETAN BHOGI CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. CPC BANGALORE/ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallow deduction u/s 80P if the ITR is not filed within due date was brought by way amendment made by Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 wherein clause (v) of section 143(1)(a) was amended by substituting following words "Section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.. Deduction in respect

DEE GEE SAW & METAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, LUCKNOW

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

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

disallowance of Rs.3,22,274/- (for Assessment Year 2018-19) and Rs.1,94,670/- (for Assessment Year 2019-20) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution to PF / ESI invoking the provisions of section

DEE GEE SAW & METAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, LUCKNOW

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

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

disallowance of Rs.3,22,274/- (for Assessment Year 2018-19) and Rs.1,94,670/- (for Assessment Year 2019-20) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution to PF / ESI invoking the provisions of section

M/S. RUPANI FOOTCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR NAGAR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Rupani Footcare V. The Income Tax Officer Private Limited Ward 2(3)(1) 122/334, Shastri Nagar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaecr1354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

22. It also said that the word “contribution” used in clause (b) of Section 43B of Act 1961 means the contribution of employer and employee, both, and that being so, if contribution is deposited on or before due date for furnishing Return of income under subsection (1) of Section 139 of Act 1961, employer is entitled for deduction. 23. Though

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD.,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. ACIT, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Acit Sitapur/Cpc, V. Limited Income Tax Deptt., C/O Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Bengaluru-560500. Lakhimpur Kheri, U.P.-241001. Pan:Aawfs0887P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26 11 2024

22,704/- under section 80P of the Act. The issue for consideration before us is that whether once the return of income is filed beyond the prescribed date under section 139(1) of the Act, can the deduction under section 80P of the Act be denied to the assessee, by way of adjustment under section