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

In the result, appeals vide I

disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was made\nsolely on the basis of investment by Assessee Company in SPVs without\nverifying objects of investment and understanding of relevant provision of law.\nIt is also submitted that section 14A carries heading 'Expenditure\nincurred in relation to income not includible in total income'\n\nAs per Section

UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

Section 145B(3) as\nwell as ICDS, and then the corresponding expenditures actually incurred whether\nby the appellant or by the executing agencies as the case may be for the specified\nobjects.\n6. 20. From the Income & Expenditure Account furnished by the appellant during\nthe course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the surplus over income\nwas Rs.156

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT\nAND\nSHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 145B(3) as\nwell as ICDS, and then the corresponding expenditures actually incurred whether\nby the appellant or by the executing agencies as the case may be for the specified\nobjects.\n\n6. 20. From the Income & Expenditure Account furnished by the appellant during\nthe course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the surplus over income\nwas Rs.156

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

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

24, 2008 vide Income Tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules,\n2008 CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. [2018] 90 taxmann.com 2, this Court has held that Rule\n8D is prospective in nature,.\"\nThus, application of the calculation in rule 8D is automatic, once the section 14A is\ninvoked. Therefore, the AO was correcting in calculating the disallowance

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

disallowance irrespective of the fact whether such income has been earned during the financial year or not.” (B) The appeal filed by the assessee is beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. As per noting of registry, this appeal is time barred by 03 days only. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay

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

disallowance irrespective of the fact whether such income has been earned during the financial year or not.” (B) The appeal filed by the assessee is beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. As per noting of registry, this appeal is time barred by 03 days only. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay

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

disallowance irrespective of the fact whether such income has been earned during the financial year or not.” (B) The appeal filed by the assessee is beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. As per noting of registry, this appeal is time barred by 03 days only. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay

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

disallowance irrespective of the fact whether such income has been earned during the financial year or not.” (B) The appeal filed by the assessee is beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. As per noting of registry, this appeal is time barred by 03 days only. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay

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

disallowance irrespective of the fact whether such income has been earned during the financial year or not.” (B) The appeal filed by the assessee is beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. As per noting of registry, this appeal is time barred by 03 days only. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

24,075/which would be disallowed also.\nHence, the total disallowance as per provisions of Section 14-A would be Rs.\n99, 486/-+1,24

M/S PRAMOD TELECOM PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, in ITA. No

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

disallowed, which was indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return. He moved on to analyse the various amendments made to section 143(1) over a period of time and pointed out that in the memorandum to Finance Bill, 2016, it had been explained that Clause (a) of sub section

M/S PRAMOD TELECOM PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, in ITA. No

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

disallowed, which was indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return. He moved on to analyse the various amendments made to section 143(1) over a period of time and pointed out that in the memorandum to Finance Bill, 2016, it had been explained that Clause (a) of sub section

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(FORMERLY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),AYODHYA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

24. The ld. CIT(A) dealt with the issue of disallowance on account of violation of section 13(3) of the Act by the assessee

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

section 2(24)(x) r.w.s.36(1)(va), the entire contribution made by\nthe employees during the relevant year was disallowed

AMAN INFRAPROPERTIES P. LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance of Rs.1,24,30,890/- made by the ACIT, Range-1, Lucknow vide order dated 12.12.2017 passed under section

AMAN INFRAPROPERTIES P. LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance of Rs.1,24,30,890/- made by the ACIT, Range-1, Lucknow vide order dated 12.12.2017 passed under section

M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, ITA No. 374/LKW/2017 is partly allowed while ITA No

disallowing a deduction of Rs. 11,71,898/- under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act. Besides this, the AO had also erred in holding that the amounts of Rs. 4,24

M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, ITA No. 374/LKW/2017 is partly allowed while ITA No

disallowing a deduction of Rs. 11,71,898/- under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act. Besides this, the AO had also erred in holding that the amounts of Rs. 4,24