M/S AVADH HOSPITAL AND HEART CENTRE,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-6, LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW- NEW

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

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

220/-. The CPC, Bangalore disallowed the claim of deduction for payment of Rs.11,62,946/- under section 36(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act on account of employees contribution of EPF & ESIC. Page 3 of 17 3. Aggrieved by the orders of the CPC, Bangalore, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A), NFAC

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

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)

6. The facts relating to the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act are that the assessee filed its revised return of income on 19.3.2016 declaring total income of Rs.61,24,23,603/- and claimed deduction of Rs.4,68,60,927/- under Chapter VI-A of the Act. The assessee thereafter again revised its return of income

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. SHRI YOGESH MULWANI, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2016-17 The Asstt. Cit V. Shri Yogesh Mulwani Range 1 36, Cantonment Road Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ahnpm4669B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Respondent By: Shri K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 19 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 06 2022 O R D E R

220 Taxman 141 (Alld.) Page 6 of 8 3. ‘CIT vs. Swastik Roadlines (P.) Ltd.’, 36 taxmann.com 441 (Agra Trib.) 4. ‘Smt. Sudha Loyalka vs. ITO’, 97 taxmann.com 303 (Delhi Trib.) 5. ‘PCIT vs. Rishabhdev Technocable Ltd.’, 115 taxmann.com 333 (Bombay) 6. We have heard the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

6. The procedure for the preparation as well as approval of the plan is also laid under section 11 of the UPUPD Act. 7. Section 16 of UPUPD Act prohibits the usage of land acquired the authority for any person other than the approved plan. 8. Section 17 and 18 of UPUPD Act provides the procedure and power for acquisition

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

6. The procedure for the preparation as well as approval of the plan is also laid under section 11 of the UPUPD Act. 7. Section 16 of UPUPD Act prohibits the usage of land acquired the authority for any person other than the approved plan. 8. Section 17 and 18 of UPUPD Act provides the procedure and power for acquisition

LUCKNOW EVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. I.T.O., LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

6. The procedure for the preparation as well as approval of the plan is also laid under section 11 of the UPUPD Act. 7. Section 16 of UPUPD Act prohibits the usage of land acquired the authority for any person other than the approved plan. 8. Section 17 and 18 of UPUPD Act provides the procedure and power for acquisition

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

6. The procedure for the preparation as well as approval of the plan is also laid under section 11 of the UPUPD Act. 7. Section 16 of UPUPD Act prohibits the usage of land acquired the authority for any person other than the approved plan. 8. Section 17 and 18 of UPUPD Act provides the procedure and power for acquisition

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

6. The procedure for the preparation as well as approval of the plan is also laid under section 11 of the UPUPD Act. 7. Section 16 of UPUPD Act prohibits the usage of land acquired the authority for any person other than the approved plan. 8. Section 17 and 18 of UPUPD Act provides the procedure and power for acquisition

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

220/- in the assessment year 2007-08 and Rs.80,10,634/- in the\n assessment year 2008-09 for interest earned on these schemes but not reflected in\nthe income and expenditure account. With regard to the revolving fund, contained in\nSchedule 9B (B) of the balance-sheet of the assessee, the ld. AO observed that in the\n assessment

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

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

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

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

6. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that the assessee is a "Parishad" namely "The Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad” which has been incorporated by the Legislative Assembly vide Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam 1965. The scope of activities to be performed by the Parishad

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

6. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that the assessee is a "Parishad" namely "The Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad” which has been incorporated by the Legislative Assembly vide Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam 1965. The scope of activities to be performed by the Parishad

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

6. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that the assessee is a "Parishad" namely "The Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad” which has been incorporated by the Legislative Assembly vide Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam 1965. The scope of activities to be performed by the Parishad

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

6,990 and Rs. 10,220 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

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

220/- in the assessment year 2007-08 and Rs.80,10,634/- in the\n assessment year 2008-09 for interest earned on these schemes but not reflected in\nthe income and expenditure account. With regard to the revolving fund, contained in\nSchedule 9B (B) of the balance-sheet of the assessee, the ld. AO observed that in the\n assessment