DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P FOREST CORPORATION, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2016-17

254 Hon'ble I.T.A.T., vide its order dated 2000 read with 16.01.2009 in ITA No 512/LUC/2007, has Section 143(3) granted registration to the assessee u/s 12A of the Income –Tax Act, 1961. The assessee vide its written reply dated 29.12.2009 has claimed that in view of the said decision of the Hon'ble I.T.A.T., its entire income is exempt

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

disallowance of the nature made by the AO. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 6,95,21,880/- made by the AO is deleted giving relief to the appellant. 8(1) Ground of appeal number 5 is as under- 5. That the addition of an amount of Rs 3,28,24,607/- on account of Centage is wrong on the following

INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUCKNOW vs. RAJEEV KUMAR KAPOOR, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

254 ITR 799, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that interest on arrears of tax was compensatory in nature and not penal. Hence, the ld. AR submitted that no disallowance was called for under Explanation 1 to sub section

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

section 263, in as\nmuch as, an appeal against the impugned assessment order passed\nu/s 143(3) was pending before the CIT(A) at the time of initiation of\nproceedings u/s 263, the order passed by PCIT be quashed.\nThe above ground of appeal is purely a legal ground and goes to the root of the\nmatter. The facts

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 the claim. ITA No.66/LKW/2017 & C.O. No.19/lkw/2017 Page 11 of 27 In this regard it is reiterated that objections of Assessing officer were only on assumption, without interpretation of law and against facts of the case. Further reliance is also placed on recent judgment of Hon'ble ITAT (All) Lucknow bench in the case of Vijay infrastructure Ltd where

VIMLESH KUMAR,RAEBARELI vs. ITO, RAEBARELI

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivatava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vimlesh Kumar Income Tax Officer V. Village & Post Thulendi, Income Tax Building, Jail Bachhrawan, Raebareli- Road, Raebareli-229001. 229301. Pan:Blbpk4834R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 11 2024 O R D E R

disallowance of u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, 1961. 4. Because the learned officer National Faceless Assessment centre Delhi erred both on facts and in law by making an addition of Rs.66,25,550/- on account of addition of u/s 40A(3) of the Act, 1961. Page 2 of 5 5. Because the learned officer National Faceless Assessment centre

HIND CHARITABLE TRUST,LUCKNOW vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), LUCKNOW

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: Na Hind Charitable Trust Vs. Pcit(Central) Lucknow Block B, Church Road, Indira Uttar Pradesh-226010. Nagar, Lucknow-226016. Tan/Pan:Aaath5498M (Appellant) (Respondent)

254 of the Act on 31.03.2023 for A.Y.s 2008-09 to 2014-15. For the sake of convenience and completeness, we refer to the subsequent assessment order for A.Y. 2008-09 wherein, after examining the digital evidence and the specific reconciliations regarding IPD receipts and building funds, the AO accepted the Assessee's explanations and deleted the additions relating

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

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we don't see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act.” Page 22 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM

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

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we don't see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act.” Page 22 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM

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

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we don't see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act.” Page 22 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S SHRI RAMSWAROOP CHARITABLE TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Y. 2013-14

section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked. Since we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Id. CIT(A), we confirm the same as he has adjudicated the issue In the light of various judicial pronouncements. Accordingly we confirm his order. In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. " ln view of the above

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S SHRI RAMSWAROOP CHARITABLE TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2014-2015

254 ITR 216(SC) and the judgments of Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT as outlined above, the disallowance made by the AO cannot be sustained. Even otherwise if an addition has been made in the case of charitable trust the same would be treated as application for charitable purpose. Since the registration u/s 12A of the Act of the appellant trust

BHARTIYA JAN SEWA ASHRAM,JAUNPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudhary

section 68 of the Act); (3) grants in question had been received for 'specified purpose' which was in conformity with the objects of the “appellant society" and the same being fully verifiable from utilization, reports, surplus and other related information as had duly been placed on record during the course of assessment/appellate proceedings and on a due consideration

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2, KANPUR vs. M/S. MAHAVIR SHIP BREKERS, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit-2 V. M/S Mahavir Ship Breakers Kanpur 123/388, Fazal Ganj Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aabfm3820B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Gupta, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 19 09 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 09 2019 O R D E R Per T.S. Kapoor, A.M.: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-I, Kanpur, Dated 4/6/2018 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14, Taking The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1 Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Has Not Been Able To Substantiate His Claims During Assessment Proceedings. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Relying On The Submissions & Evidences Filed By The Assessee U/R 46A Which Are Not Supported With Proper & Reliable Circumstantial & Documentary Evidences. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1 Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Which Has Been Brought Out In Ita No.622/Lkw/2018 Page 2 Of 9

section 145 of the Act. The account books have not been rejected by the assessing officer. In view of the above, the Tribunal formed an opinion where once the account books are expected to be maintained in the prescribed accounting standard, the assessing officer could not have made any additions towards the sale of rice treating it to be outside

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

disallowance of donations Page 52 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 paid to various outside trusts. Hence we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 1 to 5 raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are hereby dismissed. DCIT

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

disallowance of donations Page 52 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 paid to various outside trusts. Hence we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 1 to 5 raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are hereby dismissed. DCIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR., KANPUR vs. M/S. SUSHRUT INSTITUTE OF PLASTIC SURGERY PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic Central Circle 2 Surgery Private Limited Kanpur 29, Shahmeena Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.15/Lkw/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No.30/Lkw/2023] Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic V. The Acit Surgery Private Limited Central Circle 2 29, Shahmeena Road Kanpur Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Cross - Objector) (Respondent)

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.16,99,00,480/-. 2.4 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Act. ITA No.30/LKW/2023

INCOME-TAX OFFICER - 2(2), BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. SAHAKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LIMITED FARIDPUR, BAREILLY

The Appeal of the Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer – 2(2) V. Sahakari Ganna Vikas Samiti Bareilly Limited Faridpur, Bareilly Tan/Pan:Aaeas2700G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Respondent By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 21 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 11 2024 O R D E R

disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) against the Nil income returned by the assessee. He further submitted that the NFAC, vide impugned order, held that the entire deduction ITA No.334/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 3 claimed by the assessee was eligible. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that