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

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

GENUS POWER INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITTED,NOIDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTERAL), LUCKNOW

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

section and that you fulfilled the requisite\ncondition, stipulations, rules etc. Please furnish requisite documentary\nevidence based on which such deduction has been claimed. In case of your\nfailure to furnish these details, the corresponding direction claimed is\nliable to be disallowed.\n\nLarge deduction claimed u/s 35

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, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. The Dy. Cit Nigam Ltd. Range Vi Visheshwaraiya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Dy. Cit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Range Vi Nigam Ltd. Lucknow Visheshwaraiya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan: Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Department By: Smt. Sheela Chopra, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04 10 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 12 2021 O R D E R

35,99,000/- on account of interest on "Client Interest Account" without appreciating the facts that the assessee is claiming TDS relating to FDR's of unutilized fund but is not showing the interest income of FDR's in its income which is against provisions of Section-198 and 199 of Income Tax Act 1961. 4. Apropos the sole ground

M/S U.P RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. The Dy. Cit Nigam Ltd. Range Vi Visheshwaraiya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Dy. Cit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Range Vi Nigam Ltd. Lucknow Visheshwaraiya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan: Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Department By: Smt. Sheela Chopra, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04 10 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 12 2021 O R D E R

35,99,000/- on account of interest on "Client Interest Account" without appreciating the facts that the assessee is claiming TDS relating to FDR's of unutilized fund but is not showing the interest income of FDR's in its income which is against provisions of Section-198 and 199 of Income Tax Act 1961. 4. Apropos the sole ground

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 irrespective of the fact whether such income has been earned during the financial year or not.” I.T.A. No.485/Lkw/2019 “1. Learned CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.7,35,64,119/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section

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 irrespective of the fact whether such income has been earned during the financial year or not.” I.T.A. No.485/Lkw/2019 “1. Learned CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.7,35,64,119/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section

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 irrespective of the fact whether such income has been earned during the financial year or not.” I.T.A. No.485/Lkw/2019 “1. Learned CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.7,35,64,119/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section

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 irrespective of the fact whether such income has been earned during the financial year or not.” I.T.A. No.485/Lkw/2019 “1. Learned CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.7,35,64,119/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section

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 irrespective of the fact whether such income has been earned during the financial year or not.” I.T.A. No.485/Lkw/2019 “1. Learned CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.7,35,64,119/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT, (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

disallowances of expenses\nwhile invoking provision of section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is\nestimated.\n\n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining deduction addition u/s 80G of the extent to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- out of Rs.14,06,000/- allowed part relief to the\nextent of Rs.6

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(FORMERLY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),AYODHYA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed and why the net profit shown in its profit not be brought to tax. In response, the assessee submitted that its activities were of charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15), was not applicable in its case because its aims were the coordinated and planned development of the historical cities of Ayodhya and Faizabad. It further

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 14A,\nthere being no tax free income, addition is contrary to facts, bad in law\nand be deleted.\n16 Because there being no expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning\ntax free income nor there being any satisfaction recorded by the authorities\nbelow the disallowance made is bad in law and be deleted.\"\n2.\nAt the time of hearing

M/S INDIA PESTICIDES LTD,BAREILLY vs. DCIT-1, BAREILLY, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S India Pesticides Ltd. V. The Dcit-1 35-A, Civil Lines Bareilly Bareilly Tan/Pan:Aaaci3591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Written Submission) Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

35-A, Civil Lines Bareilly Bareilly TAN/PAN:AAACI3591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None (Written submission) Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.r. Date of hearing: 17 05 2022 Date of pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, dated

M/S SWARUP CHEMICALS PVT. LTD,BAREILLY vs. DCIT--1, BAREILLY

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

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

35-A, Civil Lines Bareilly Bareilly TAN/PAN:AADCS8959E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None (Written submission) Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 17 05 2022 Date of pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R PER BENCH: These are assessee’s appeals against the respective orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, dated

M/S SWARUP CHEMICALS PVT. LTD,BAREILLY vs. DCIT-1, BAREILLY, BAREILLY

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

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

35-A, Civil Lines Bareilly Bareilly TAN/PAN:AADCS8959E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None (Written submission) Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 17 05 2022 Date of pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R PER BENCH: These are assessee’s appeals against the respective orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, dated

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

35) of Rs.30,09.485) (ii) Dividend on investment (exempt u/s 10(34) Rs.15,300/-) and (iii) Profit on sale of GOI bonds (exempt u/s 10(38) Rs.3,55,000/-). He accordingly issued a show cause notice to the assessee asking why disallowances should not be made on account of Section

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY. CIT, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

35) of Rs.30,09.485) (ii) Dividend on investment (exempt u/s 10(34)\nRs.15,300/-) and (iii) Profit on sale of GOI bonds (exempt u/s 10(38) Rs.3,55,000/-).\nHe accordingly issued a show cause notice to the assessee asking why disallowances\nshould not be made on account of Section

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT, LUCKNOW

35) of Rs.30,09.485) (ii) Dividend on investment (exempt u/s 10(34)\nRs.15,300/-) and (iii) Profit on sale of GOI bonds (exempt u/s 10(38) Rs.3,55,000/-).\nHe accordingly issued a show cause notice to the assessee asking why disallowances\nshould not be made on account of Section