RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 2(15) of the Act as amended w.e.f. 01.04.2016 made an addition of business profit at Rs.3,32,79,731/-. Further, the Assessing Authority disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.43,28,224/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the income of Rs.3,76,07,955/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-APPEAL, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 2(15) of the Act as amended w.e.f. 01.04.2016 made an addition of business profit at Rs.3,32,79,731/-. Further, the Assessing Authority disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.43,28,224/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the income of Rs.3,76,07,955/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before

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

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

Section 14A(2). Hence, we decline to\ninterfere with the order of the Id. CIT (A) and the disallowance is directed to be deleted.\"\nIn view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is prayed that the disallowance\nmade by the Assessing Officer may kindly be deleted.\"\n6.3 DECISION:\n6. 3. 1. Disallowance u/s 14A made

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 2(22)(e) are not applicable to the facts of the case,\nthe addition made be deleted.\nGround no. 4 relates to addition of Rs.13 26 600/- u/s 41 1 of the Income\nTax Act, 1961\nThe AO while dealing with the issue has held as under:\n5. Further, from Schedule “A” of balance sheet relating to sundry creditors

U.P.COOPERATIVE FEDERATIONLTD,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(3), , LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.260/Lkw/2023 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 U.P. Cooperative Federation V. Income Tax Officer-2(3) Ltd Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Pcf Building, 32, Station Road, 57, Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow-226004. Hazratganj, Lucknow- 226001. Pan:Aaaau0373P अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri D. D. Chopra, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22 09 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 19 12 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

disallowances out of expenses. It therefore, implies that the learned Tribunal had set aside the assessment order dated 9.6.2006 and therefore, the limitation for passing fresh assessment order will be governed by the provisions under section 153(2A) of the Act which in this case subsisted upto 31.3.2010. b. To give effect to the order passed by this learned tribunal

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

2 of section 263, it is incumbent to point\nout what more enquiries would the AO ought to have conducted.\nGrounds No. 10 That the Learned PCIT, Bareilly has also failed to\nappreciate that, u/s 263 of the Act, an order of assessment cannot be set-\naside to simply to make further enquiries and thereafter pass fresh order\nof assessment

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

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

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

254/-\n18,39,650/-\nAddition on account of depreciation\n5,61,657/-\nTotal income (rounded off)\n24,01,310/-\n2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the\nLd. First Appellate Authority challenging the initiation of reassessment\nproceedings as well as challenging the\nadditions/disallowances on merits. However, the appeal before\nthe Ld. First Appellate Authority came to be dismissed.\n2.3

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

2,28,960/on the foreign trip of doctors - Assessee had incurred the expenditure on sponsorship of different programs and seminars on different occasions, as the doctors are the major role player in the profit earning process of the assessee — Assessee has established the genuineness of the expenditure and demonstrated its connectivity with the business of the assessee — Disallowance

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

2 of 24 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) after issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. In response notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed a reply stating that the return filed on 05.07.2010, declaring Nil income, be treated as return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

2 of 24 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) after issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. In response notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed a reply stating that the return filed on 05.07.2010, declaring Nil income, be treated as return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer

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

BADRI PRASAD VISHWA NATH JEWELS,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-2, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowing purchases amounting to Rs.2,54,52,515/- by applying the provisions of section 40A(3) of Income-tax Act. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing assessment order which is contrary to the facts and law.” Additional Grounds of Appeal “1. That the notice u/s 143(2

ACIT(E), LUCKNOW vs. M/S. BHAGWANT INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, BIJNOR

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

2 which is related to the ad\nhoc disallowances of expenditure @ 25% on ad hoc basis\namounting to Rs.37,55,277/-.\n10. The Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue\nreiterated the submissions made in the written synopsis. He\ncontended that the assessee failed to furnish supporting\nevidences before the Assessing Authority. Therefore, the\nAssessing Authority was justified in making

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

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 1 of section 37 on this account. He further submitted that all these facts had been placed before