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

In the result, appeals vide I

disallowance of Rs.1,71,63,491/- u/s 14A of the I.T. Act read with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The express provisions of section

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD.,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. ACIT, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Acit Sitapur/Cpc, V. Limited Income Tax Deptt., C/O Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Bengaluru-560500. Lakhimpur Kheri, U.P.-241001. Pan:Aawfs0887P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26 11 2024

disallowance of Rs. 1,63,83,734/- u/s 80P of I. T. Act made by CPC Bengaluru u/s 143(1)(a)ii) of I. T. Act. (2) That though Assessee Society submitted belated Return, but Ld. C.I.T.(A) failed to appreciate that Section

M/S MAHAVIR PAINTS AND ADHESIVES PVT.LTD,KANPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(3), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Mahavir Paints & V. The Income Tax Officer Adhesives Pvt. Ltd. Ward 2(3)(3) 123/760-D, Fazal Ganj Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaacm9521B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 04 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 20.12.2021, For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because The Cit(A)/Nfac Has .Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.1,63,230/- Being Amount Paid Towards Esic & Epf Of The Employees, Which Amount Being Allowable Both On The Basis Of Interpretation Of The Statute & On The Basis Of The Decision Of The Apex Court In The, Case Of Allom Extrusion 319 Ir 306 (Sc). Pr. Cit Vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. & The Allahabad High Court In The Case Of Shagun Foundry Private Limited Vs. Cit ,Ita No. .87 Of 20061 'The Same Be Allowed. 2. Because The Cit(A)/Nfac Has Failed To Appreciate That The Amount Of Rs.1,63,230/- Being Esic & Epf, Being A Business Expenditure Incurred For The Purpose Of Business Having Been 'Paid Before The Filing Of The Return Of Income, The Same Being An Allowable Business

disallowing a sum of Rs.1,63,230/- by applying the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act. 3. Aggrieved

VIDYUT TRANSMISSION KARMACHARI VETAN BHOGI CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. CPC BANGALORE/ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

63,83,734/- 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed." Copy of the case law is at page 13-19 of the paper book. Following case laws are also squarely applied in the present case: 1- [2023] 149 taxmann.com Section 80P, read with section 139, of 28 (Rajkot Trib.) IN THE the Income

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 14A,\nthere being no tax free income, addition is contrary to facts, bad in law\nand be deleted.\n16 Because there being no expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning\ntax free income nor there being any satisfaction recorded by the authorities\nbelow the disallowance made is bad in law and be deleted.\"\n2.\nAt the time of hearing

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance of Rs.1,71,63,491/- u/s 14A of the I.T. Act read with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The express provisions of section

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

disallowance of Rs.1,71,63,491/- u/s 14A of the I.T. Act read with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The express provisions of section

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

disallowance of Rs.1,71,63,491/- u/s 14A of the I.T. Act read with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The express provisions 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. 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

MOHD. AYAZ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

disallowing 10% of the total purchases, such addition being contrary to provisions of law, the addition made be deleted, the assessment be quashed.” 2. The facts of the case are, that in this case, an original assessment order was passed under section 143(3) on 9.12.2019 on a total returned income of Rs.33,76,700/-. Subsequently, an order under section

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

63,64,165/ c.Development of villages expenses of Rs. 2,09,07,745/- I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 8 14. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 10,84,632/-. 15. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

63,64,165/ c.Development of villages expenses of Rs. 2,09,07,745/- I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 8 14. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 10,84,632/-. 15. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred

LUCKNOW EVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. I.T.O., LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

63,64,165/ c.Development of villages expenses of Rs. 2,09,07,745/- I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 8 14. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 10,84,632/-. 15. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

63,64,165/ c.Development of villages expenses of Rs. 2,09,07,745/- I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 8 14. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 10,84,632/-. 15. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

63,64,165/ c.Development of villages expenses of Rs. 2,09,07,745/- I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 8 14. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 10,84,632/-. 15. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred