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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

41,75,589/-\non account of investments in capital assets, the ld. CIT DR relied upon the orders\nof the ld. CIT(A). With regard to the addition of Rs.5,59,55,800/- under section 68\nand addition of Rs.6,77,19,543/- by way of adhoc disallowances, the ld. CIT(DR)\nsubmitted that the additions had been made primarily

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

C. A. Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D. R. Date of hearing 19/05/2022 Date of pronouncement 26/05/2022 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 16/12/2021. In this appeal the assessee has taken the following grounds: “That the appellant denies its liability to be assessed at total

VIKASH AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

C. A. Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D. R. Date of hearing 19/05/2022 Date of pronouncement 26/05/2022 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 18/10/2021. In this appeal the assessee has taken the following grounds: “That the appellant denies its liability to be assessed at total

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

C. I. T. (A), NFAC, erred on facts and in law in upholding the rejection of\ndeduction u/s 36(1) (viia) and 36(1) (viii) as Provision for NPA Rs.81,73,424/- has\nbeen made in the accounts as per Rules.\n4. That the addition of Rs.41,73,577/- as Employees Contribution u/s 36(1)(v)(a) also\nincludes Employer

ULTRA VALUE,LUCKNOW vs. ITO (1)(1), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 Ultra Value V. The Ito (1)(1) C-1619/12, Rajajipuram Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaefu0694G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashok Seth, C.A. 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 21.9.2021 For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Income Returned Should Have Been Accepted. 2. That Application Filed U/S 154 Should Have Been Accepted. 3. The Addition Made By Learned Lower Court Was Not Within The Preview Of Adjustments Which Could Be Made U/S 143(1)(A). 4. That In The Facts & Legal Aspects Of The Case Learned Lower Court Erred In Holding That Amendment Made To Section 36(1)(Va) By Finance Act, 2021 Were Retrospective In Nature. 5. That The Learned Lower Court Erred In Facts & Legal Aspects Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Made Of Page 2 Of 17

C-1619/12, Rajajipuram Lucknow Lucknow TAN/PAN:AAEFU0694G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ashok Seth, C.A. 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 21.9.2021 for Assessment Year

M/S. AVADH HOSPITAL AND HEART CENTRE,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-6, LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW

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

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

C) No.3 of 2020, vide para 5(III) of its order dated 10.1.2022, held that in cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.3.2020 till 28.2.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 1.3.2022; and that therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee

M/S AVADH HOSPITAL AND HEART CENTRE,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-6, LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW- NEW

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

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

C) No.3 of 2020, vide para 5(III) of its order dated 10.1.2022, held that in cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.3.2020 till 28.2.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 1.3.2022; and that therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee

SANGRILA NUTRI FOOD PRODUCTS,KANPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(3), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2019-20

C. A. Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D. R. Date of hearing 08/02/2022 Date of pronouncement 08/03/2022 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 18/08/2021. In this appeal the assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. Because National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi hereinafter referred

J.P. MOTOR RPIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2018-19 J.P. Motor Pvt. Ltd. V. The Acit 313/22, Khun Khun Ji Road Range 1 Chowk, Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aabcj6763H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 07 2022 O R D E R

C) No. 3 of 2020, whereby the limitation expiring in cases between 15.3.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 1.3.2022, has submitted that in this view of the matter, the appeal filed before the Tribunal is well within the limitation period, as the order was received on 01.10.2021 and the appeal was filed

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

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MORADABAD

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of 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.

c) is used in entirely different senses, in the relevant Page 7 of 23 deduction clauses. The differentiation is also evident from the fact that each of these contributions is separately dealt with in different clauses of Section 36 (1). All these establish that Parliament, while introducing Section 36(1)(va) along with Section 2(24)(x), was aware

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

c) (ii) will get attracted if the benefit was confined primarily and predominantly to the persons mentioned in Section 13(3)(b) and (e) and incidentally some benefit had percolated and flowed to the public/third persons.” 20. It has been held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the Respondent’s own case in M/s UP Awas Evam & Vikas

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

c) (ii) will get attracted if the benefit was confined primarily and predominantly to the persons mentioned in Section 13(3)(b) and (e) and incidentally some benefit had percolated and flowed to the public/third persons.” 20. It has been held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the Respondent’s own case in M/s UP Awas Evam & Vikas

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

c) (ii) will get attracted if the benefit was confined primarily and predominantly to the persons mentioned in Section 13(3)(b) and (e) and incidentally some benefit had percolated and flowed to the public/third persons.” 20. It has been held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the Respondent’s own case in M/s UP Awas Evam & Vikas

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

c) (ii) will get attracted if the benefit was confined primarily and predominantly to the persons mentioned in Section 13(3)(b) and (e) and incidentally some benefit had percolated and flowed to the public/third persons.” 20. It has been held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the Respondent’s own case in M/s UP Awas Evam & Vikas