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

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

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

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

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, 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, 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

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

NETPLAST PVT.LTD.,KANPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(3)(1), KANPUR

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

Section 14A(2). Hence, we decline to\ninterfere with the order of the Id. CIT (A) and the disallowance is\ndirected to be deleted.\"\nIn view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is prayed\nthat the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer may kindly be\ndeleted.\nThe appeal filed by the assessee be allowed.\nIn case

BHAGWANTI RUBBER AND ALLIED PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

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

JAGMINI MICRO KNIT PVT. LTD,KANPUR vs. DCIT 2(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 Jagmani Micro Knit Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit 2, Sarvodaya Nagar Circle 2(1)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaach3405B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Pradeep Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 04 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

MR. SHITIJ DHAWAN ,KANPUR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,, SPECIAL RANGE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Shitij Dhawan V. The Assessing Officer 122/235, Fazalganj Special Range Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Acqpd3380G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 04 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

RYDERS EQUESTRIAN PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALURU, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 Ryders Equestrain Products V. The Dy. Cit Pvt. Ltd. Circle 2(1)(I) 50-A, 150, Feet Road Jajmau Lucknow Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaecr3352B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15 06 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 06 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 29.9.2021, For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

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