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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 14A r.w.r 8D do not draw any relation to such expenditures in relation to exempt. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts as the assessee invested a substantial amount of Rs. 187 Cr. in group companies/sister concerns which entail disallowances to be computed as per the provision of 14A of the I.T. Act read

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 14A r.w.r 8D do not draw any relation to such expenditures in relation to exempt. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts as the assessee invested a substantial amount of Rs. 187 Cr. in group companies/sister concerns which entail disallowances to be computed as per the provision of 14A of the I.T. Act read

M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. D/ACIT-1,CENTRAL-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 14A r.w.r 8D do not draw any relation to such expenditures in relation to exempt. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts as the assessee invested a substantial amount of Rs. 187 Cr. in group companies/sister concerns which entail disallowances to be computed as per the provision of 14A of the I.T. Act read

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUCKNOW, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW vs. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., VIBHUTI KHAND GOMTI NAGAR LKO

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 14A r.w.r 8D do not draw any relation to such expenditures in relation to exempt. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts as the assessee invested a substantial amount of Rs. 187 Cr. in group companies/sister concerns which entail disallowances to be computed as per the provision of 14A of the I.T. Act read

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

section of society for \ncommercial area as certain percentage has to be made available for local shops and \nshops for barber, vegetable vendor etc. which are disposed-off through lottery \nsystem. It is this leftover part from 5% of saleable area that is sold though auction. \nFurthermore, the disposal of residential properties is done by an Authority as per \nthe

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

section of society for \ncommercial area as certain percentage has to be made available for local shops and \nshops for barber, vegetable vendor etc. which are disposed-off through lottery \nsystem. It is this leftover part from 5% of saleable area that is sold though auction. \nFurthermore, the disposal of residential properties is done by an Authority as per \nthe

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 The Asstt. Commissioner V. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd Of Income Tax B-9, Vibhuti Khand Central Circle Ii Gomti Nagar Lucnow Lucknow Pan:Aadca5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.19/Lkw/2017 [In Ita No.66/Lkw/2017] Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-9, Vibhuti Khand Income Tax Gomti Nagar Central Circle Ii Lucknow Lucnow Pan:Aadca5639H (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

46A of LT. Rules without giving opportunity to Assessing Officer in this regard. 7. That the appellant craves to add or amend any one or more of the grounds of the appeal as stated above as and when needs for doing so may arise. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in the Cross Objection are as under: 1. Because

SANTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, NFAC

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Santosh Kumar Shukla V. The Assessment Unit 11A/141, Vrindavan Colony Nfac Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bawps5372J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalabh Singh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.03.2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was An Employee Of Planning Research & Action Division Of State Planning Institute, Since 1993. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148A(B) Of The Act, Vide Dated 16.03.2022 For The Reason That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits/Time Deposits In His Bank Account. In Response To Notice Under Section Under Section 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.04.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of

disallowed the same under section 438. Before the CIT(A) for the first time the assessee produced a letter issued by 'A' Ltd, stating therein that it had deposited cess in full. The Third Member on appreciation of these facts held that the evidence in the form of the letter could not be considered an additional evidence

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. 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

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

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

DARSHANA DAVE,KANPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(5), KANPUR, DCIT, CPC

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Darshana Dave V. The Ito 14/75, Civil Lines Ward 1(3)(5) Kanpur (U.P) Kanpur Tan/Pan:Ahepd2111L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 07.02.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 14.09.2017, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.7,91,625/-, Claiming Long Term Capital Loss Of Rs.8,69,268/-. The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bangalore Processed The Return Of The Assessee Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) & Passed An Order Dated 11.01.2019, Computing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.34,46,712/-, Thereby Raising A Demand Of Rs.9,59,106/- As Against The Refund Of Rs.39,250/- Computed By The Assessee. Against This Order, The Assessee Filed

46A filed by the assessee has been sought, hence, the appellate order u/s 250 being bad in law be quashed. 5.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that in this case the assessee had received the impugned amount on surrendering Life Insurance Policies and the same was claimed as capital receipts in rectification application moved under

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GONDA, GONDA vs. M/S. KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, BALRAMPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section in ITR by assessee without giving opportunity and calling for remand report from the Assessing Officer u/s 250(4) of the IT Act read with Rule 46A(3) of the I.R. Rules, 1962.” I.T.A. No.184/Lkw/2023 Assessment year:2013-14 2 (B) The appeal filed by Revenue is beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 253(3) of the Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-V, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. PREMIER CAR SALES LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

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

46A of the I.T. Rules. Learned D. R. further submitted that assessee had failed to prove the genuineness and identity of the employees and, therefore, the Assessing Officer had rightly made the disallowance out of salary and wages expenses and which the learned CIT(A) has wrongly allowed. 3. Learned A. R., on the other hand, submitted that the Assessing

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GONDA, GONDA vs. M/S. KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, BALRAMPUR

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section in ITR by assessee without giving opportunity and calling for remand report from the Assessing Officer u/s 250(4) of the IT Act read with Rule 46A(3) of the I.R. Rules, 1962.” (B) The appeal filed by Revenue is beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act” for short

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. M/S ROHIT SURFACTANTS PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance under the head. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the relief Rs.14,20,72,292/- on account of deduction U/s 801B & 80IC without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to file his return to income for the A.Y. under consideration as per Section 139(1) read with conditions

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

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

46A of the I.T. Rules. 6. In view of these facts and circumstances, ground Nos. 2 to 5 in I.T.A. No.582 are dismissed. 7. Now coming to ground No. 1 in assessment year 2015-16 regarding issue of commission, we find that the Assessing Officer has made the disallowance by holding that the sales, on which commission was debited