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

disallowance has been made arbitrarily by application of Rule\n8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii).\n3. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that as per section 144(2) of the Act,\nAssessing Officer is duty bound to record his/her dissatisfaction on correctness\nof claim of assessee before invoking the provision of section 144. As it is\nevident

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

In the result, appeals vide I

disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was made\nsolely on the basis of investment by Assessee Company in SPVs without\nverifying objects of investment and understanding of relevant provision of law.\nIt is also submitted that section 14A carries heading 'Expenditure\nincurred in relation to income not includible in total income'\n\nAs per Section

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

4 of the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973 and as per section 58, the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973, the State Government was empowered to dissolve the development authority. Furthermore, State Government had the power to call for records of the authority under section 41, approve the budget under section 20, make the Rules under section 55 etc. Thus, from the above, it was clear that

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 2(22)(e) are not applicable to the facts of the case,\nthe addition made be deleted.\nGround no. 4 relates to addition of Rs.13 26 600/- u/s 41 1 of the Income\nTax Act, 1961\nThe AO while dealing with the issue has held as under:\n5. Further, from Schedule “A” of balance sheet relating to sundry creditors

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

4 of the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973 and as per section 58, the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973, the State \nGovernment was empowered to dissolve the development authority. Furthermore, State \nGovernment had the power to call for records of the authority under section 41, approve the \nbudget under section 20, make the Rules under section 55 etc. Thus, from the above, it was clear \nthat

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

In the result all six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

4 of the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973 and as per section 58, the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973, the State \nGovernment was empowered to dissolve the development authority. Furthermore, State \nGovernment had the power to call for records of the authority under section 41, approve the \nbudget under section 20, make the Rules under section 55 etc. Thus, from the above, it was clear \nthat

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

4 of the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973 and as per section 58, the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973, the State \nGovernment was empowered to dissolve the development authority. Furthermore, State \nGovernment had the power to call for records of the authority under section 41, approve the \nbudget under section 20, make the Rules under section 55 etc. Thus, from the above, it was clear \nthat

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

41 to 44 of the P.B., were not covered in under provisions of section 14A of the Act. It was further submitted that the assessee had total interest fee fund of Rs.25,20,31,732/- and therefore, the investment made in non-SLR Investment of Rs.13,75,00,000/-, was entirely out of its own resources and therefore there

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

41 to 44 of the P.B., were not\ncovered in under provisions of section 14A of the Act. It was further submitted that\nthe assessee had total interest fee fund of Rs.25,20,31,732/- and therefore, the\ninvestment made in non-SLR Investment of Rs.13,75,00,000/-, was entirely out of its\nown resources and therefore there

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

41 to 44 of the P.B., were not\ncovered in under provisions of section 14A of the Act. It was further submitted that\nthe assessee had total interest fee fund of Rs.25,20,31,732/- and therefore, the\ninvestment made in non-SLR Investment of Rs.13,75,00,000/-, was entirely out of its\nown resources and therefore there

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

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

4 relating to the addition of Rs.48,28,730/-,\nwhich had been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on account of employees contribution to\nprovident fund under section 36(1)(va), it was submitted that the actual figure of\nemployees contribution that was debited in the P&L account was only Rs.28,61,534/-\nand therefore, disallowance to the extent

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KANPUR vs. M.K.U PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

41 ITR that it was the duty of the assessee to disclose all primary facts which have a bearing on liability of income earned by the assessee being subjected to tax, but from a perusal of the records of the case, it was revealed that neither had any queries been raised by the ld. AO 3 CO No.23/LKW/2018

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

4. The CIT(A), Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,14,54,725/- on account of short centage shown by assessee in A.Y. 2009-10 without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not furnished any documentary Evidence regarding non-allowance of centage on service tax & external electrification before

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR vs. COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-5, Kanpur 84/105, Kailash Motors Building, G.T. Road, Afim Kothi, Kanpur-208003 Pan: Aaccc4267E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (A)- 2, Kanpur Dated 25.09.2017, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y. 2006-07 On 23.12.2008. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 5,32,366/- U/S 14A Without Taken Into Consideration That The Expenditure Incurred In Relation To Exempt Income. 02. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 99,56,258/-Without Appreciating That The Provisions Of Sec. 50C Have Been Invoked By The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Stamp Valuation Of The Property. The Assessee Has Not Claimed Before The Assessing Office To Make The Reference To The Valuation Officer U/S 55A Of It Act, 1961. 3 That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 3,20,90,164/- On Account Of Loss Claimed On Sale Of Shares Without Appreciating That The Transaction As Claimed Were Sham & Was Incorporated Only To Evade The Capital Gain Earned On The Sale Of Properties. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Ignoring The Facts Noted By The Assessing Officer Regarding The Transaction Of Sale Of Shares.

41(1) Rs. 2,82,364/- 2 Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2006-07 iv. Inadmissible depreciation on car Rs. 33,762/- v. Misc. expenses Rs. 1,75,498/- vi. Addition on account of late deposit of ESI under section 2(24)(X) r.w.s. 36(i)(va) Rs. 7,771/- vii. Addition under section 14A Rs. 5,32,366/- Thus

ACIT CIRCLE 3, LUCKNOW vs. RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 112 To 114/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2015-16 To 2017-18 Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Vs. Dcit Bank Ltd P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. 226001. Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan:Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) A.Y.2016-17 Acit Circle-3 Vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh Ltd Kar Bhawan, Lucknow Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan: Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Addl. Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Four Appeals Have Been Have Been Filed For The Assessment Years 2015 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18 By The Assessee & Revenue Ssessee & Revenue Against The Respective Orders Of The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024. While The Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, The Revenue 18, The Revenue

41 to 44 of the P.B., were not covered in under provisions of section 14A of the Act. It was further submitted that the assessee had total interest fee fund of Rs.25,20,31,732/- and therefore, the investment made in non-SLR Investment of Rs.13,75,00,000/-, was entirely out of its own resources and therefore there

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

41,898/-credited in \"Infrastructure Fund\", as the same\nstood diverted by over-riding title in favour of the State Government and consequently\nthe \"CIT(A)\" should have held that the sums in question alongwith interest thereon\nwere outside the ambit of assessment in the case of the \"appellant\".\n3. BECAUSE the \"CIT(A) has erred

M/S ALLIANCE BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Alliance Builders & Asst.Commissioner Of V. Contractors Ltd Income Tax, Central Circle-2 C/O 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Allen Ganj, Kanpur. Pan:Aaeca8217A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 11 2024 O R D E R

41 of the said notice, it was also required to produce books of account, bills and vouchers etc. for verification. However, even after 4 months of lapse of time, the same were not furnished. Since no compliance to the notice under section 142(1) was made, penalty of Rs. 10,000/was also imposed on 06.11.2013. Furthermore, for the continuous noncompliance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowed despite the assessee having been engaged in the education activities, duly registered under section 12A of he Act. (ii) That the above exemption has been denied invoking the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, without giving any specific findings in this regard. Page 18 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 4.1 Section