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

Section 43B and explanation there-under. 3. That the authorities below have erred in law and facts in not appreciating that the addition of Rs.2,38,295/- could not be made in the intimation u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in disallowing Rs.1,37

INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUCKNOW vs. RAJEEV KUMAR KAPOOR, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowed on account of the provisions of section Explanation 1 of sub section 1 of section 37. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal. 4

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

37 of the Act. 10.4 In order to make the intention of the legislation clear and to make it free from any misinterpretation, FA 2022 has inserted an Explanation to section 14A of the Act to clarify that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act, the provisions of this section shall apply and shall be deemed to have

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

37 of the Act. 10.4 In order to make the intention of the legislation clear and to make it free from any misinterpretation, FA 2022 has inserted an Explanation to section 14A of the Act to clarify that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act, the provisions of this section shall apply and shall be deemed to have

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

37 of the Act. 10.4 In order to make the intention of the legislation clear and to make it free from any misinterpretation, FA 2022 has inserted an Explanation to section 14A of the Act to clarify that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act, the provisions of this section shall apply and shall be deemed to have

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

37 of the Act. 10.4 In order to make the intention of the legislation clear and to make it free from any misinterpretation, FA 2022 has inserted an Explanation to section 14A of the Act to clarify that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act, the provisions of this section shall apply and shall be deemed to have

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

37 of the Act. 10.4 In order to make the intention of the legislation clear and to make it free from any misinterpretation, FA 2022 has inserted an Explanation to section 14A of the Act to clarify that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act, the provisions of this section shall apply and shall be deemed to have

K.M.SUGAR MILLS LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE2(2)(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17

section 37 2 3,61,967 Disallowance of Foreign Travel Expenses 3 13,06,595 Page 2 of 4 Disallowance

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

4. Such income has arisen from the compensation of consideration for such transfer received by such assessee on or after the 1st day of April 2004.” g. From perusal of aforesaid facts and the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, it is noteworthy that agricultural land of the appellant was compulsorily acquired by ADM (LA), Lucknow. Aforesaid land falls under

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

4. Such income has arisen from the compensation of consideration for such transfer received by such assessee on or after the 1st day of April 2004.” g. From perusal of aforesaid facts and the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, it is noteworthy that agricultural land of the appellant was compulsorily acquired by ADM (LA), Lucknow. Aforesaid land falls under

BHAGWANTI RUBBER AND ALLIED PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowed under section 36(1)(va). But the Ld. Assessing Officer (CPC) without appreciating the legal position and facts of the case made the above mentioned addition of Rs.3,37,472/- and the assessee preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble CIT (A)-2, Kanpur against said order and then order has been passed by Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

4 of 16 (iii) Addition of Rs.12,72,887/ made u/s 37 of the Act on account of disallowance of claim of interest on unsecured loans. 12. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. "CIT(A)" should have directed the AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. J/DCIT-CC,, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

4 of 16 (iii) Addition of Rs.12,72,887/ made u/s 37 of the Act on account of disallowance of claim of interest on unsecured loans. 12. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. "CIT(A)" should have directed the AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

4 of 16 (iii) Addition of Rs.12,72,887/ made u/s 37 of the Act on account of disallowance of claim of interest on unsecured loans. 12. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. "CIT(A)" should have directed the AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated

M/S RAHMAN INDUSTRIES LTD,KANPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Rahman Industries Ltd. V. The Acit-6 184/167, Wazidpur, Jajmau Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaacr6862N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Sheela Chopra, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 03 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10 03 2022 O R D E R

section 37 of the Act, 1961. Page 4 of 11 14. Because the CIT(A) has erred on. facts and in law, in disallowing

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

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 for Assessment Year

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.

37. It is evident that the intent of the lawmakers was clear that sums referred to in clause (b) of Section 43B, i.e., "sum payable as an employer, by way of contribution" refers to the contribution by the employer. The reference to "due date" in the second proviso to Section 43B was to have the same meaning as provided

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

37,000/-, which addition be bad in law be deleted.\n13. Because without prejudice, if the disallowance/enhancement is to be\nsustained, then the same would go into increase the value of the closing to\nand in like fashion, the value of opening stock for the year should ought to\nhave been adjusted. Such exercise having not been done, the addition

MORAL PHARMACEUTICALS (P) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3,LUCKNOW-NEW/DCIT,CPC,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on the ground that the employees' contribution to PF & ESI was deposited by the assessee after the due date specified in the relevant Acts. 4. BECAUSE the employees' contribution to PF & ESI had been deposited by the assessee before the due date of filing the return of income and as such