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

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

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 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

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

M/S SHIVANSH INFRAESTATE PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Block-A, Surajdeep Income Tax, Range-6, 3Rd Floor, Complex, 1-Jopling Road, 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001 P.K. Complex, Lucknow Pan: Aaqcs5896P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 30.12.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1- The Ld. Cit (A) Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Ground That Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito-6(1) Lucknow On 01.04.2016 Without Appreciating That Jurisdiction Of Case Lies With Dcit, Range-6, Lucknow, Hence The Notice Issued By Ito-6(1) Is Without Jurisdiction & Invalid. Further, No Notice U/S 143(2) Has Been Issued By Jurisdictional Dcit, Range-Vi, Lucknow Within The Period As Per Section 143(2) Of L. T. Act. Hence The Present Assessment Is Invalid, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2- The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Upheld The Addition Without Appreciating That Ld. A. O. Rejected The Books Of Account & Instead Of Estimating The Net Profit, Additions Were Made On The Basis Of Same Books Of Account By Disallowing Expenses Under Different Heads Total Rs. 1,75,91,607/- & Addition U/S 68 R. W. S. 115Bbe Of I. T. Act For Rs. 1,32,78,833/- Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law.

220/- under section 68 of the Act and brought the same to tax under section 115BBE. Finally, the ld. AO observed that the assessee had refunded deposits/advances in cash to certain persons amounting to Rs. 34,98,688/-. He held that the provisions of section 269T were applicable and he therefore, initiated penalty proceedings under section 271D

M/S CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1, RANGE-3(4), LAKHIMPUR KHERI

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowances made by the ld. AO in respect of claim of deduction under section 80P for interest earned by the assessee were upheld and the appeals of the assessee were dismissed. The grounds of appeal are as under:- ITA No.37/Lkw/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 1. That the Authorities below erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction

M/S CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION GOLA,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE-3(4), LAKHIMPUR KHERI-1

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowances made by the ld. AO in respect of claim of deduction under section 80P for interest earned by the assessee were upheld and the appeals of the assessee were dismissed. The grounds of appeal are as under:- ITA No.37/Lkw/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 1. That the Authorities below erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction

M/S CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,LAKHIMPUR-KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-I, LAKHIMPUR -KHERI

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

disallowances made by the ld. AO in respect of\nclaim of deduction under section 80P for interest earned by the assessee were upheld\nand the appeals of the assessee were dismissed. The grounds of appeal are as under:-\nITA No.37/Lkw/2022 A.Y. 2017-18\n1. That the Authorities below erred on facts and in law in not allowing\ndeduction

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

220 is not high — same allowed. « LIFE SIGHT SURGICALS (P) LTD VS. DCIT16TH JULY, 2010 - [(2010) 133 TTJ (AHD)(UO) 27] Business expenditure - Allowability - Sales promotion expenses — assessee company has incurred Rs. 2,28,960/on the foreign trip of doctors - Assessee had incurred the expenditure on sponsorship of different programs and seminars on different occasions, as the doctors

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 The Asstt. Commissioner V. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd Of Income Tax B-9, Vibhuti Khand Central Circle Ii Gomti Nagar Lucnow Lucknow Pan:Aadca5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.19/Lkw/2017 [In Ita No.66/Lkw/2017] Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-9, Vibhuti Khand Income Tax Gomti Nagar Central Circle Ii Lucknow Lucnow Pan:Aadca5639H (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

disallowing claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), vide his impugned order, dated 10.11.2016, allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80IA of the Act, relying on various judicial precedents. 12. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Chirakkal Services Co-operative Bank

DY. CIT SPECIAL RANGE-1, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. M/S INDO GULF FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALSCOEPORATION LTD, SULTANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

220/- and Rs.3,06,89,33,400/- respectively. The assessment order dated 24/02/1992 was passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“I.T. Act”) for short wherein the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.45,70,500/-. The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid assessment order was partly allowed by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned appellate

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

disallowance of foreign commission treating the same as prior period expenditure of Rs. 2,60,000/-. 5. That the appellant being aggrieved went in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who deleted the above additions but confirmed the addition amounting of Rs.2,96,50,131/- to the extent of six sundry creditor which ITA. No.139/LKW/2022 Page 6 of 158 were

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

disallowance of foreign commission treating the same as prior period expenditure of Rs. 2,60,000/-. 5. That the appellant being aggrieved went in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who deleted the above additions but confirmed the addition amounting of Rs.2,96,50,131/- to the extent of six sundry creditor which ITA. No.139/LKW/2022 Page 6 of 158 were

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(5), KANPUR vs. SHRI VIVEK BENARA, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

220/- by making addition of Rs.8,46,24,793/- under section 68 and Rs.21,98,819/- on account of disallowance of interest, bank charges and legal expenses. I.T.A. No.182/Lkw/2018 Assessment Year:2013-14 2