UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

32 to section 38, the provisions of Section 40(a) (ia) can be pressed into service to disallow such claims

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

In the result, appeals vide I

section 14A of the Act, amounting to\nRs.2,56,56,447/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the aforesaid amount\nholding that this amount represented interest expenses in relation to making\ninvestments, income from which would not be includable in the assessee's\nhand. In the impugned appellate order, the learned CIT(A) deleted the\naforesaid addition after considering the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. COMMERCIAL ENGINEERS & BODY BUILDERS CO. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are squarely applicable in this case. 2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kanpur has erred in law as well as on facts and circumstances of the case ITA No.657 & 658/LKW/2018 Page 2 of 24 in deleting the addition of Rs.9,57,30,050/- made on account

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. COMMERCIAL ENGINEERS & BODY BUILDERS CO. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are squarely applicable in this case. 2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kanpur has erred in law as well as on facts and circumstances of the case ITA No.657 & 658/LKW/2018 Page 2 of 24 in deleting the addition of Rs.9,57,30,050/- made on account

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

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act can be made in the absence of any exempt income for the assessment years relevant to the appeal as the assessee’s case is not hit by aforesaid Explanation to section 14A of the Act. Therefore, Revenue’s appeal in I.T.A. No.229/Lkw/2020 for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed. (E) As regards Revenue

DCIT, RANGE-6, 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

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act can be made in the absence of any exempt income for the assessment years relevant to the appeal as the assessee’s case is not hit by aforesaid Explanation to section 14A of the Act. Therefore, Revenue’s appeal in I.T.A. No.229/Lkw/2020 for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed. (E) As regards Revenue

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

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act can be made in the absence of any exempt income for the assessment years relevant to the appeal as the assessee’s case is not hit by aforesaid Explanation to section 14A of the Act. Therefore, Revenue’s appeal in I.T.A. No.229/Lkw/2020 for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed. (E) As regards Revenue

U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-VI, 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

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act can be made in the absence of any exempt income for the assessment years relevant to the appeal as the assessee’s case is not hit by aforesaid Explanation to section 14A of the Act. Therefore, Revenue’s appeal in I.T.A. No.229/Lkw/2020 for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed. (E) As regards Revenue

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

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act can be made in the absence of any exempt income for the assessment years relevant to the appeal as the assessee’s case is not hit by aforesaid Explanation to section 14A of the Act. Therefore, Revenue’s appeal in I.T.A. No.229/Lkw/2020 for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed. (E) As regards Revenue

ADITYA FLEXIPACK LLP,KANPUR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

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

disallowed the claim of deduction for payment of Rs.15,99,983/- under section 36(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act on account of employees contribution of EPF & ESIC and for Assessment Year 2019-20, the assessee filed its return on 28.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.8,94,32

ADITYA FLEXIPACK LLP,KANPUR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

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

disallowed the claim of deduction for payment of Rs.15,99,983/- under section 36(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act on account of employees contribution of EPF & ESIC and for Assessment Year 2019-20, the assessee filed its return on 28.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.8,94,32

M/S PREMIER CAR SALES LTD,HAZRATGANJ vs. THE ACIT -5, LUCKNOW NEW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

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

disallowed the claim of deduction for payment of Rs.3,38,882/- under section 36(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act on account of employees contribution of EPF & ESIC and for Assessment Year 2019-20, the assessee filed its return on 31.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.8,32

M/S PREMIER CAR SALES LTD,HAZRATGANG vs. THE ACIT -5, LUCKNOW NEW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

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

disallowed the claim of deduction for payment of Rs.3,38,882/- under section 36(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act on account of employees contribution of EPF & ESIC and for Assessment Year 2019-20, the assessee filed its return on 31.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.8,32

MUHAMMED AFTAB ALAM,LUCKNOW vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, DCIT -6,, LUCKNOW NEW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2018-19 Muhammed Aftab Alam V. Dcit-6, 8/4, Rak Marg, Sf Colony Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Acqpa5602E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Hemant Jain, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 18.11.2021, For Assessment Year 2018-19, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Grossly Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Intimation U/S 154 Sent By Cpc Where By It Processed The Return Of Income Of Appellant For Ay 2019-20 At Rs.36,47,045/-.

32,250/-. While processing the return of income at CPC, Page 2 of 16 Bangalore, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of payment of Rs.15,58,782/- under section

M/S GULATI EXTRUSIONS PVT. LTD,KANPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Gulati Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit 17-A, Co-Operative Industrial Circle 2(1)(1) Estate Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaacg5008M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1.3.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of Five Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Director Of The Assessee Company Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Stating Therein That The Papers Required For Filing The Appeal Was Sent Through Speed Post On 27.4.2021 Well Within The Limitation Period, However The Same Was Delivered By The Postal Authorities In The Office Of The Tribunal On 5.5.2021. It Was Further Stated That Since The Nominal Delay Of Five Days Was Due To Late Delivery Of The Dak By The Postal Authorities, The Delay May Be Condoned & The Appeal Be Admitted For Hearing. Having Carefully Perused The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That There Was Sufficient Cause For The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. Accordingly, The Delay Of 5 Days Is Condoned & Admit This Appeal For Hearing.

disallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too starts with a non-obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head "Profits and Gains of Business and Profession". Likewise, Section 40A(2) opens with a non- obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible

KWALITY RESTAURANT,KANPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 Kwality Restaurant V. The Cit(A) 16/97, The Mall Delhi Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaafk8712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.9.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 115 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Which Is Also Supported By An Affidavit. 3. I Have Gone Through The Application For Condonation Of Delay As Well As The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee & Heard The Contention Of The Ld. D.R. On The Issue Of Condonation Of Delay. The Ld. D.R. Has Objected To The Condonatiion Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Is Shifting The Blame Of Delay On Its Counsel. 4. Having Considered The Reasons Explained By The Assessee In The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That The Assessee Has Explained The Cause Of Delay That Due To An Oversight Of The Counsel Of The Assessee, Necessary Steps For Filing

disallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too starts with a non-obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head "Profits and Gains of Business and Profession". Likewise, Section 40A(2) opens with a non- obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible

M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, ITA No. 374/LKW/2017 is partly allowed while ITA No

disallowance of expenses claimed under section 80IB. Following the order of the Hon’ble High Court, there was no reason for the AO to frame a fresh assessment under section 143(3) because his M/s Model Tanners (India) Pvt. Ltd. A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2009-10 area of jurisdiction would not be restricted to only the incriminating materials found during

M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, ITA No. 374/LKW/2017 is partly allowed while ITA No

disallowance of expenses claimed under section 80IB. Following the order of the Hon’ble High Court, there was no reason for the AO to frame a fresh assessment under section 143(3) because his M/s Model Tanners (India) Pvt. Ltd. A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2009-10 area of jurisdiction would not be restricted to only the incriminating materials found during