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

M/S STANDARD FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT LTD,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance of Rs.2,22,289/- on account of interest on unsecured loan. 6. That the assessment completed by learned Assessing Officer is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful as no addition can be made merely on doubt or presumption without bringing any positive evidences. 7. That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in not providing proper and adequate opportunity to the appellant

KAMAL KANT VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance of Rs.2,22,289/- on account of interest on unsecured loan. 6. That the assessment completed by learned Assessing Officer is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful as no addition can be made merely on doubt or presumption without bringing any positive evidences. 7. That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in not providing proper and adequate opportunity to the appellant

SACHIN VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance of Rs.2,22,289/- on account of interest on unsecured loan. 6. That the assessment completed by learned Assessing Officer is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful as no addition can be made merely on doubt or presumption without bringing any positive evidences. 7. That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in not providing proper and adequate opportunity to the appellant

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.

35. It is instructive in this context to note that the Finance Act, 1987, introduced to Section 2(24), the definition clause (x), with effect from 1 April 1988; it also brought in Section 36(1)(va). The memorandum explaining these provisions, in the Finance Bill, 1987, presented to the Parliament, is extracted below: "Measures of penalising employers mis-utilising

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

35. It is instructive in this context to note that the Finance Act, 1987, introduced to Section 2(24), the definition clause (x), with effect from 1 April 1988; it also brought in Section 36(1)(va). The memorandum explaining these provisions, in the Finance Bill, 1987, presented to the Parliament, is extracted below: "Measures of penalising employers mis-utilising

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act. 3. The A.O., in his assessment order, made a number of additions on account of depletion in value of stock, receipts towards Infrastructure fund, receipts towards Vambay Scheme Fund and Page

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act. 3. The A.O., in his assessment order, made a number of additions on account of depletion in value of stock, receipts towards Infrastructure fund, receipts towards Vambay Scheme Fund and Page

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act. 3. The A.O., in his assessment order, made a number of additions on account of depletion in value of stock, receipts towards Infrastructure fund, receipts towards Vambay Scheme Fund and Page

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act. 3. The A.O., in his assessment order, made a number of additions on account of depletion in value of stock, receipts towards Infrastructure fund, receipts towards Vambay Scheme Fund and Page

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act. 3. The A.O., in his assessment order, made a number of additions on account of depletion in value of stock, receipts towards Infrastructure fund, receipts towards Vambay Scheme Fund and Page

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act. 3. The A.O., in his assessment order, made a number of additions on account of depletion in value of stock, receipts towards Infrastructure fund, receipts towards Vambay Scheme Fund and Page

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act. 3. The A.O., in his assessment order, made a number of additions on account of depletion in value of stock, receipts towards Infrastructure fund, receipts towards Vambay Scheme Fund and Page

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act. 3. The A.O., in his assessment order, made a number of additions on account of depletion in value of stock, receipts towards Infrastructure fund, receipts towards Vambay Scheme Fund and Page

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

In the result, appeals vide I

ii): Disallows a portion of administrative expenses incurred in\nrelation to managing the investments.\n\nRule 8D(2)(iii): Disallows a portion of other expenses incurred in relation to\nexempt income.\n\nThe submission of the assessee that no dividend income was earned from\nthe SPVs is irrelevant in view of the above judicial pronouncements and CBDT\ncircular nol. 05/2014

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

ii) of the Act, it was not entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Act on the entire surplus of the assessee amounting to Rs.30,48,01,279/- and therefore, she confirmed this addition also and dismissed the appeal of the assessee trust on these grounds. She also rejected the plea of the assessee that the Assessing Officer