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

iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied

RAMESHWAR RAI,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2018-19 Rameshwar Rai V. The Ito-2 5, Civil Lines Bareilly Opp. Rohila Motel Bareilly Tan/Pan:Afypr0788R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Written Submission By The Assessee. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06 04 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 5.8.2021, For Assessment Year 2018-19, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Id. Cit (Appeals) (Nfac) Has Grossly Erred On Facts & Law In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.3,37,008/- Made By The A.O. On A/C Of Employee'S Contribution Of Esi & P.F. Being Late Payment While It Has Been Deposited Before The Due Date Of Filing The Return, After Ignoring The Facts & Law As Laid Down By Hon'Ble Allahabad High Court Which Is A Jurisdictional High Court. 2. While Confirming The Addition The Id. Cit (A) Has Grossly Erred In Applying The Case Laws Of Various High Courts When The Law Laid Down By Jurisdictional High Court Was Already Available & Hon'Ble Supreme Court Had Already Dismissed Slp Filed By Deptt. Against The Order Of Rajasthan High Court. 3. The Addition Further Suffers From An Illegality Wherein The A.O. Has Erred In Making The Adjustments In Returned

iv) while there was no such disallowance indicated in the audit report. 4. That charge of interest u/s 234 B and 234 C is excessive and illegal due to the above mentioned wrong addition which has not been adjudicated by Id CIT (A). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income

M/S PRAMOD TELECOM PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, in ITA. No

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

iv) on account of late deposit of employee contribution to provident fund and ESI while processing the return of income. He reproduced the provisions of section 143(1) and highlighted the fact that expenditure could be disallowed, which was indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return. He moved

M/S PRAMOD TELECOM PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, in ITA. No

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

iv) on account of late deposit of employee contribution to provident fund and ESI while processing the return of income. He reproduced the provisions of section 143(1) and highlighted the fact that expenditure could be disallowed, which was indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return. He moved

M/S BEEAAR AUTOWHEELS INDIA PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ITO WARD 1(3), LUCKNOW-NEW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2020-21 M/S Beeaar Autowheels India V. The Income Tax Officer Pvt Ltd Ward-1(3) 9, Premier Building, Shahnazaf Aaykar Bhawan, 5, Ashok Road, Lucknow-226001. Nagar, Lucknow-New, Uttar Pradesh-226001. Pan:Aadcb8897L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri Deepak Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 08 2025 O R D E R

section 143(1)(a) (iv) of the Act, disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not Page 3 of 10 taken into account in computing the total income in the return was allowed on account of an information gathered from the audit report. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the indication of disallowance u/s 36

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

iv) read with Section 2 (5B) (iii) of the Act; and (d) it enjoys exemption under section 36 (1) (viii) of the Income tax Act, 1961, vide letter F.No.147(S)/73-TPL dated 30.5.1976 issued by the CBDT, as is available to a financial corporation only. 5. BECAUSE on a due consideration of nature of activities actually carried

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyinterest Tax Appeal Nos.3 & 4/Lkw/2004 A.Ys.1995-96 & 1996-97

iv) read with Section 2 (5B) (iii) of the Act; and (d) it enjoys exemption under section 36 (1) (viii) of the Income tax Act, 1961, vide letter F.No.147(S)/73-TPL dated 30.5.1976 issued by the CBDT, as is available to a financial corporation only. 5. BECAUSE on a due consideration of nature of activities actually carried

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

In the result, appeals vide I

36\nis Rs.59,39,941/-, \nbelow Rs.60 lakhs.\nTherefore, as per\nCircular no. 9 of\n2024 dt. 17.09.2024\nappeal of Revenue is\nnot maintainable.\n\nAPCO INFRATECH PVT LTD\nPAN: AADCA5639H\nAY 2018-19 CIT(A) Order dt. 19.12.2023 (against Order dt. 23.04.2021 u/s 143(3))\n\nSI.\nNo.\nIssue involved\nLd. CIT(A)\nBefore Hon'ble\nITAT\n1\nDisallowances

JCIT(OSD), CC-1, LKO, LUCKNOW vs. ACP TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

disallow the claim of\ndepreciation. (AY. 2007-08 to 2009-10)\n1. M/s.Dimension Construction\nPvtLtd., 1148, EWard, Respondent\nSykes Extension, Kolhapur.\nITA Nos.540and541/PUN/2016\nAssessmentYears:2005-06and\n2007-08dt. 05/01/2018\nWe have heard the rival submissions and perused the material\non record. We find that identical issue of depreciation on the\nintangible asset namely, right to collection of toll from

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

36(1)(va) of the Act relying upon the information given by the auditor in Form 3CD. As per the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) the following adjustment can be made: “143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return shall

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of the payments aggregating to Rs. 10,50,00,000/- made to Contributory Provident Fund as had been set up under the provisions of the “the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Contributory Provident Fund Regulation, 1973”by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(iv

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of the payments aggregating to Rs. 10,50,00,000/- made to Contributory Provident Fund as had been set up under the provisions of the “the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Contributory Provident Fund Regulation, 1973”by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(iv

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of the payments aggregating to Rs. 10,50,00,000/- made to Contributory Provident Fund as had been set up under the provisions of the “the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Contributory Provident Fund Regulation, 1973”by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(iv

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

iv. the filing of the return. 8. Sub section (3) of Section 11 provides that if such income which is accumulated is not utilized for the purpose for which it was so accumulated during the period given in the statement, then such income shall be deemed to be the income of such person of the previous year in which

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

iv. the filing of the return. 8. Sub section (3) of Section 11 provides that if such income which is accumulated is not utilized for the purpose for which it was so accumulated during the period given in the statement, then such income shall be deemed to be the income of such person of the previous year in which

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

iv. the filing of the return. 8. Sub section (3) of Section 11 provides that if such income which is accumulated is not utilized for the purpose for which it was so accumulated during the period given in the statement, then such income shall be deemed to be the income of such person of the previous year in which

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

iv. the filing of the return. 8. Sub section (3) of Section 11 provides that if such income which is accumulated is not utilized for the purpose for which it was so accumulated during the period given in the statement, then such income shall be deemed to be the income of such person of the previous year in which

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

iv. the filing of the return. 8. Sub section (3) of Section 11 provides that if such income which is accumulated is not utilized for the purpose for which it was so accumulated during the period given in the statement, then such income shall be deemed to be the income of such person of the previous year in which

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

iv. the filing of the return. 8. Sub section (3) of Section 11 provides that if such income which is accumulated is not utilized for the purpose for which it was so accumulated during the period given in the statement, then such income shall be deemed to be the income of such person of the previous year in which