M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, ITA No. 374/LKW/2017 is partly allowed while ITA No

50 Lacs was being given to Sh. Mehtab Alam in cash for purchase of Rawhides and furthermore, Sh. Mehtab Alam had also given a statement. He, therefore, held that the initiation of action under section 153C by the AO is justified. Therefore, he disallowed

M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, ITA No. 374/LKW/2017 is partly allowed while ITA No

50 Lacs was being given to Sh. Mehtab Alam in cash for purchase of Rawhides and furthermore, Sh. Mehtab Alam had also given a statement. He, therefore, held that the initiation of action under section 153C by the AO is justified. Therefore, he disallowed

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

50,00,000/- as on 31.03.2017 were out of “Interest free funds\" and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held that in the case of PCIT vs Sintex Industries Ltd (supra) that where assessee had surplus funds against which investment were made, question of making of any disallowance of expenditure in\n17\nrespect of interest and administrative

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)

50,850/-. ITA No.66/LKW/2017 & C.O. No.19/lkw/2017 Page 6 of 27 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Revenue is in further appeal before this Tribunal against the deletion of disallowance of claim of deduction of Rs.4,68,60,927/- under 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

50,000/- being the receipts shown in the 'Tourism Development Grant UP'. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the above statutory receipts are in the form of government grants and not against any of the alleged business activities. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in holding the above grant as revenue receipts. Further, sustaining disallowance

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

50,00,000/- as on 31.03.2017 were out of “Interest free funds”\nand that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held that in the case of PCIT vs\nSintex Industries Ltd (supra) that where assessee had surplus funds against which\ninvestment were made, question of making of any disallowance of expenditure in\n17\nITA Nos.112 to 114/LKW/2024\nITA

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT, (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

disallowances of expenses\nwhile invoking provision of section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is\nestimated.\n\n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining deduction addition u/s 80G of the extent to the extent of Rs.1,50

PRADEEP KUMAR,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Pradeep Kumar V. The Acit-1 A-1/46, Vikas Khand Lucknow Gomti Nagar Lucknow Pan:Ablpk8392B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Prakash Agrawal, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04 09 2024 O R D E R

50,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act and disallowance of Rs.40,00,000/- under section 37 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

50,00,000/- as on 31.03.2017 were out of “Interest free funds”\nand that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held that in the case of PCIT vs\nSintex Industries Ltd (supra) that where assessee had surplus funds against which\ninvestment were made, question of making of any disallowance of expenditure in\n17\nrespect of interest and administrative

METAL CANS AND CLOSURES PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ACIT-5, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2014-15 Metal Cans & Closures Pvt. Asstt. Commissioner Of V. Ltd. Income Tax-5 Plot No.23, Panki Indus. Area, Vaibhav Bhawan, Site-1, Panki,Kanpur-208022. 15/295-A, Civil Lines, Kanpur-208001. Pan:Aaicm2233Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 11 2024 O R D E R

disallowance of Rs.4,50,738/- being interest paid to M/s. Tata Financial Services Limited by applying the provisions of section

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

50,000/- being the receipts shown in the 'Tourism Development Grant UP'. Ld. CIT(A) \nfailed to appreciate that the above statutory receipts are in the form of government grants \nand not against any of the alleged business activities. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in holding \nthe above grant as revenue receipts. Further, sustaining disallowance

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

50,000/- being the receipts shown in the 'Tourism Development Grant UP'. Ld. CIT(A) \nfailed to appreciate that the above statutory receipts are in the form of government grants \nand not against any of the alleged business activities. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in holding \nthe above grant as revenue receipts. Further, sustaining disallowance

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

50,000/- being the receipts shown in the 'Tourism Development Grant UP'. Ld. CIT(A) \nfailed to appreciate that the above statutory receipts are in the form of government grants \nand not against any of the alleged business activities. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in holding \nthe above grant as revenue receipts. Further, sustaining disallowance

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

disallowance of Rs.6,95,21,880/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee has procured materials from work contractors and in many cases the transport charges & labour are more than cost of material. 4. The Ld.CIT(A)-2, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

HARDOI DISTRICT CANE GROWERS CO-*OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. ITO-3(2),, HARDOI-1

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 Hardoi District Cane Growers V. The Ito 3(2) Co-Operative Society Ltd. Hardoi Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj Lakhimpur Kheri Tan/Pan:Aabah4032R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R

50,823/- by making disallowance under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act at Rs.34,50,823/-. 3. Aggrieved

PAWAN JAISWAL,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1(3), KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Pawan Jaiswal V. The Income Tax Officer 1(3) 29/43, Ghumni Bazar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpj4999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

disallowance made under section 68 of the Act to 50%, i.e., Rs.2,44,000/- and with regard to the addition

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

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

50,48,01,279 as against NIL income declared by the assessee. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned authorities below have erred, both on facts and in law, in making the assessment in the status of AOP as against the status of the Charitable Trust claimed by the assessee. 7. (1) On the facts

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

section 11.\nWe notice that even while the Assessing Officer was primarily focused on trying to\ndemonstrate that the activities of the assessee parishad were not charitable, he still\nfound time to go through the accounts to observe that the assessee had applied less\nthan 85% of its receipts during the year and was therefore required to file an\napplication