INCOME TAX OFFICER, GONDA vs. M/S. CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, BALRAMPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: SH.SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

271B for non- compliance of the provisions of section 44AB of the I.T. Act, 1961. On the issue of allowability of deduction under section 80P, the ld. AO rejected the claim of the assessee on account of the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Mantola Co-operative Thrifts and Credit Society vs. Commissioner

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GONDA vs. M/S. CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, BALRAMPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: SH.SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

271B for non- compliance of the provisions of section 44AB of the I.T. Act, 1961. On the issue of allowability of deduction under section 80P, the ld. AO rejected the claim of the assessee on account of the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Mantola Co-operative Thrifts and Credit Society vs. Commissioner

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GONDA vs. M/S COOPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD, BALRAMPUR, BALRAMPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: SH.SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

271B for non- compliance of the provisions of section 44AB of the I.T. Act, 1961. On the issue of allowability of deduction under section 80P, the ld. AO rejected the claim of the assessee on account of the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Mantola Co-operative Thrifts and Credit Society vs. Commissioner

TINICH SAHKARI GANNA SAMITI LIMITED,BASTI 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

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

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. D.C.I.T. RANGE-6 (JAO), LUCKNOW

In the result, ita No.164/LKW/2022 stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

sections 270A and 271B of the Act, separately. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority against the addition of Rs.33,49,65,000/- being interest on FDRs, disallowance

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT,RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, ita No.164/LKW/2022 stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

sections 270A and 271B of the Act, separately. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority against the addition of Rs.33,49,65,000/- being interest on FDRs, disallowance

BHAWANI DEVELOPERS,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW-NEW

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid\ndirections

disallowed by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the act and\nadded to the total income of the assessee.\n3.8.6 In view of above stated facts, I am satisfied that the assessee has under reported its\nincome by misreporting. Hence penalty proceedings u/s 270A are initiated separately for\nunder reporting of income in consequences of misreporting.\n3.9\nVariation

SHRI MADAN LAL JAIN,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (NOW ITO-1(2)), KANPUR

In the result, these appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Madan Lal Jain Dcit, Central Circle-1 V. 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur- [Now Ito-1(2)] 208001. Kanpur. Pan:Abwpj2684C (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing the whole interest paid instead of difference in receipt and payment of interest. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the appellant order without providing any opportunity to the appellant to file his reply on the remand report on the basis of which order has been passed. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

MADAN LAL JAIN,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), KANPUR

In the result, these appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Madan Lal Jain Dcit, Central Circle-1 V. 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur- [Now Ito-1(2)] 208001. Kanpur. Pan:Abwpj2684C (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing the whole interest paid instead of difference in receipt and payment of interest. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the appellant order without providing any opportunity to the appellant to file his reply on the remand report on the basis of which order has been passed. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

MADAN LAL JAIN,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), KANPUR

In the result, these appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Madan Lal Jain Dcit, Central Circle-1 V. 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur- [Now Ito-1(2)] 208001. Kanpur. Pan:Abwpj2684C (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing the whole interest paid instead of difference in receipt and payment of interest. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the appellant order without providing any opportunity to the appellant to file his reply on the remand report on the basis of which order has been passed. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred