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

D E R PER BENCH: (A) These appeals, filed by the respective assessees, pertain to Rustam Foods Pvt. Ltd. group of cases. In Rustam Foods Pvt. Ltd. group of cases, search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the IT Act was carried out on 10/01/2018. For the sake of convenience and brevity, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated

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

1) of the Act in respect\nof his submission that the intention of the legislature was to give the\nnarrowest possible construction to deduction admissible under this\nsub-section. It is not necessary for us to deal with this submission in\nview of the findings recorded above. For the aforementioned reasons,\nthe Appeal is dismissed qua the issue

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

In the result, appeals vide I

1) of the Act in respect\nof his submission that the intention of the legislature was to give the\nnarrowest possible construction to deduction admissible under this\nsub-section. It is not necessary for us to deal with this submission in\nview of the findings recorded above. For the aforementioned reasons,\nthe Appeal is dismissed qua the issue

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

D E R PER BENCH: (A) These appeals and the Cross Objection have been filed against the respective impugned appellate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. The grounds taken in the appeals/Cross Objection are as under: I.T.A. No.17/Lkw/2024 “1. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

D E R PER BENCH: (A) These appeals and the Cross Objection have been filed against the respective impugned appellate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. The grounds taken in the appeals/Cross Objection are as under: I.T.A. No.17/Lkw/2024 “1. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner

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

D E R PER BENCH: (A) These appeals and the Cross Objection have been filed against the respective impugned appellate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. The grounds taken in the appeals/Cross Objection are as under: I.T.A. No.17/Lkw/2024 “1. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNIAN, LTD. ,LAKHIPUR KHERI vs. ITO WARD-3(4), LAKHIPUR-1

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

D E R (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.348/Lkw/2024 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2019-20 against impugned appellate order dated 11/03/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1062407234(1) of Addl./ Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. The Ld CIT(A) NFAC erred on facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

253 CTR (SC) 305 wherein the reopening beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year is held to be invalid by Hon’ble Supreme Court: Conclusion : Assessee having disclosed full details of its dealings in stocks and shares in its return while claiming that the loss incurred by it was a business loss, reopening of the assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

253 CTR (SC) 305 wherein the reopening beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year is held to be invalid by Hon’ble Supreme Court: Conclusion : Assessee having disclosed full details of its dealings in stocks and shares in its return while claiming that the loss incurred by it was a business loss, reopening of the assessment

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MORADABAD

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

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

D E R PER BENCH: For the sake of convenience, these three appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. The grounds of appeal are as under: ITA No.271/LKW/2024: 1.1. BECAUSE the Id. "CIT(A)" was not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine by passing the impugned order ex-parte without affording sufficient and effective opportunity of being

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

D E R PER BENCH: For the sake of convenience, these three appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. The grounds of appeal are as under: ITA No.271/LKW/2024: 1.1. BECAUSE the Id. "CIT(A)" was not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine by passing the impugned order ex-parte without affording sufficient and effective opportunity of being

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

D E R PER BENCH: For the sake of convenience, these three appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. The grounds of appeal are as under: ITA No.271/LKW/2024: 1.1. BECAUSE the Id. "CIT(A)" was not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine by passing the impugned order ex-parte without affording sufficient and effective opportunity of being

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

D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA: A.M. (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.649/Lkw/2024 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 26.08.2024 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1067982356(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] for short]/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). (B) This appeal has been filed

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

D E R PER BENCH: (A) Appeal vide I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 against impugned appellate order dated 06/05/2020 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. BECAUSE, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals