M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance of interest on unsecured loan. 6. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id."CIT(A)" should have directed the AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 270A of the Act. 7. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 8. BECAUSE each ground taken

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. J/DCIT-CC,, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance of interest on unsecured loan. 6. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id."CIT(A)" should have directed the AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 270A of the Act. 7. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 8. BECAUSE each ground taken

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

251 of the IT Act, 1961 by directing the Assessing Officer to verify the claim made by the assessee u/s 80IA which amounts to setting aside the issue which is not permissible as per provisions of the aforesaid section. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the disallowance

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

In the result, appeals vide I

251 of the IT Act, 1961 by directing the Assessing Officer to verify the claim made by the assessee u/s 80IA which amounts to setting aside the issue which is not permissible as per provisions of the aforesaid section.\n\n2.\nThe Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the disallowance of Rs.2

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance

PREM CHAND YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, LUCKNOW - NEW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Prem Chand Yadav V. The Acit-1 1/374, Sector 1 Lucknow Gomti Nagar Extension Gomti Nagar, Lucknow Pan:Abqpy1283Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Dr Preeti Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 02 07 2024 O R D E R

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in upholding the addition of a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- made u/s 68 of The Income Tax Act, 1961 qua source of the impugned amount deposited in cash SBNs during demonetization in assessee's bank accounts treated as unexplained. It is prayed that the disallowance

PAHARI MATA SAHKARI AWAS SAMITI LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT REANG-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Pahari Mata Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. V. The Assistant 761, Village – Anaura Commissioner Of Near Indira Canal Income Tax Faizabad Road, Lucknow Range-I, Lucknow Pan:Aabap6918L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18 04 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 04 2024 O R D E R

disallowing excess Interest of 6% out of 18% paid on Unsecured Loans which were used solely and exclusively for the purpose of business as per business needs. 8. The Ld. CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the incorrect finding of Ld. A. O. that Unsecured Loan has been received from the related parties and not shown

PREM MANOHAR GUPTA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KANPUR

In the result, appeal in I

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

disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) on the basis that no notice for enhancement was given to the assessee. In this respect we find that section 251 deals with the powers of CIT(A) whereby he can allow the appeal or can enhance the appeal or can annul the assessment. However, sub clause (2

PREM MANOHAR GUPTA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KANPUR

In the result, appeal in I

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

disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) on the basis that no notice for enhancement was given to the assessee. In this respect we find that section 251 deals with the powers of CIT(A) whereby he can allow the appeal or can enhance the appeal or can annul the assessment. However, sub clause (2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

251 in such a manner which is contrary to the directions given by Pr. CIT in the order u/s 263 while the Assessing Officer has passed order u/s 143(3)/263 as per provisions of law and in accordance with the directions given by Pr. CIT in the order u/s 263 and such action of CIT(A) has become prejudicial

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

251 of the IT Act, 1961 by directing the Assessing Officer to verify the claim made by the assessee u/s 80IA which amounts to setting aside the issue which is not permissible as per provisions of the aforesaid section. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the disallowance

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,BAHRAICH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, BAHRAICH

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.599, 600 & 601/Lkw/2025 A.Ys. 2013-14, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Cooperative Cane Development Vs. Income Tax Officer-1, 423A, Union Ltd., Bahraich, C/O Vaishnavpuram, Huzoorpur Ayyubi Chambers, Raniganj, Road, Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh Lakhimpur Kheri-262701, U.P. 271801 Pan: Aaaac8503F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.01.2026 O R D E R Per Bench These Three Appeals Have Been Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 25.06.2025 (For The Assessment Year 2013-14) & 26.06.2025 (For The Assessment Year 2018-19) & 4.07.2025 (For The Assessment Year 2020-21), Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Various Orders Passed By The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2018-19 & 2020-21. The Grounds Of Appeal In The Aforesaid Three Appeals Are As Under:- A.Y. 2013-14 “(1) That The Authorities Below Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Allowing Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(Iii) & 80P(2)(I) Of I. T. Act On Interest Received On Investments Held With Banks In Form Of F.D.R.'S & Interest On Saving Bank Account Rs. 72,38,730/-. (2) That The Authorities Below Erred On Facts In Not Considering Investments In Deposits With Banks Has Been Made As Per Statutory Requirements & The Interest So Realized On Such Investments Shall Be Attributable To The Activity Of Providing Credit Facilities & Marketing Agriculture Produce. Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd. A.Ys. 2013-14, 2018-19 & 2020-21

disallowed, in its case. 5. The assessee is aggrieved at all these orders of the ld. CIT(A)and has come before us in appeal against them. As all the appeals are on the same issue, they are being taken up together for the sake convenience. Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. (hereinafter referred to as the ld. AR) appearing on behalf

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,BAHRAICH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, BAHRAICH

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.599, 600 & 601/Lkw/2025 A.Ys. 2013-14, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Cooperative Cane Development Vs. Income Tax Officer-1, 423A, Union Ltd., Bahraich, C/O Vaishnavpuram, Huzoorpur Ayyubi Chambers, Raniganj, Road, Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh Lakhimpur Kheri-262701, U.P. 271801 Pan: Aaaac8503F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.01.2026 O R D E R Per Bench These Three Appeals Have Been Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 25.06.2025 (For The Assessment Year 2013-14) & 26.06.2025 (For The Assessment Year 2018-19) & 4.07.2025 (For The Assessment Year 2020-21), Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Various Orders Passed By The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2018-19 & 2020-21. The Grounds Of Appeal In The Aforesaid Three Appeals Are As Under:- A.Y. 2013-14 “(1) That The Authorities Below Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Allowing Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(Iii) & 80P(2)(I) Of I. T. Act On Interest Received On Investments Held With Banks In Form Of F.D.R.'S & Interest On Saving Bank Account Rs. 72,38,730/-. (2) That The Authorities Below Erred On Facts In Not Considering Investments In Deposits With Banks Has Been Made As Per Statutory Requirements & The Interest So Realized On Such Investments Shall Be Attributable To The Activity Of Providing Credit Facilities & Marketing Agriculture Produce. Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd. A.Ys. 2013-14, 2018-19 & 2020-21

disallowed, in its case. 5. The assessee is aggrieved at all these orders of the ld. CIT(A)and has come before us in appeal against them. As all the appeals are on the same issue, they are being taken up together for the sake convenience. Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. (hereinafter referred to as the ld. AR) appearing on behalf

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,BAHRAICH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, BAHRAICH

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.599, 600 & 601/Lkw/2025 A.Ys. 2013-14, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Cooperative Cane Development Vs. Income Tax Officer-1, 423A, Union Ltd., Bahraich, C/O Vaishnavpuram, Huzoorpur Ayyubi Chambers, Raniganj, Road, Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh Lakhimpur Kheri-262701, U.P. 271801 Pan: Aaaac8503F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.01.2026 O R D E R Per Bench These Three Appeals Have Been Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 25.06.2025 (For The Assessment Year 2013-14) & 26.06.2025 (For The Assessment Year 2018-19) & 4.07.2025 (For The Assessment Year 2020-21), Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Various Orders Passed By The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2018-19 & 2020-21. The Grounds Of Appeal In The Aforesaid Three Appeals Are As Under:- A.Y. 2013-14 “(1) That The Authorities Below Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Allowing Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(Iii) & 80P(2)(I) Of I. T. Act On Interest Received On Investments Held With Banks In Form Of F.D.R.'S & Interest On Saving Bank Account Rs. 72,38,730/-. (2) That The Authorities Below Erred On Facts In Not Considering Investments In Deposits With Banks Has Been Made As Per Statutory Requirements & The Interest So Realized On Such Investments Shall Be Attributable To The Activity Of Providing Credit Facilities & Marketing Agriculture Produce. Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd. A.Ys. 2013-14, 2018-19 & 2020-21

disallowed, in its case. 5. The assessee is aggrieved at all these orders of the ld. CIT(A)and has come before us in appeal against them. As all the appeals are on the same issue, they are being taken up together for the sake convenience. Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. (hereinafter referred to as the ld. AR) appearing on behalf

SHIVA NEETI DEVELOPERS,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2014-15 Shiva Neeti Developers V. The Income Tax Officer 3A/185, Azad Nagar Ward 3(4) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Abqfs8644D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.8.2017 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Kanpur For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

251(2) of the I.T. Act before passing the impugned order, as there is enhancement of the assessment by the ld. CIT(A) without issuing show cause notice. However, the outcome of the denial of deduction under section 80IB of the Act, on the ground of late filing of the return of income, would not be more than the disallowance

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUCKNOW, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW vs. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., VIBHUTI KHAND GOMTI NAGAR LKO

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

251 of the IT Act, 1961 by directing the Assessing Officer to verify the claim made by the assessee u/s 80IA which amounts to setting aside the issue which is not permissible as per provisions of the aforesaid section. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the disallowance

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

251 of the IT Act, 1961 by directing the Assessing Officer to verify the claim made by the assessee u/s 80IA which amounts to setting aside the issue which is not permissible as per provisions of the aforesaid section. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the disallowance

M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. D/ACIT-1,CENTRAL-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

251 of the IT Act, 1961 by directing the Assessing Officer to verify the claim made by the assessee u/s 80IA which amounts to setting aside the issue which is not permissible as per provisions of the aforesaid section. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the disallowance

TINICH SAHKARI GANNA SAMITI LIMITED,BASTII vs. ITO, BASTI

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

disallowance of expenses of Rs.3508236/- by dismissing the appeal. ITA No.295/LKW/2023 Page 4 of 28 3. Because on the whole facts, circumstances of the case and materials on record, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in denying allowability of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)/ 80P(2)(a) (iii) of the Income tax act 1961, in respect of the assessed