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

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

67,71,95,436/-which comes to Rs\n6,77,19,543/- considering the possibility of Revenue Leakage on account of\nsuch huge unverified expenses.\nAnd thus confirming the demand that is raised.\n(5) That the entire demand of Rs.35,32,80,589/- is infructuous and without\njurisdiction and is liable to be deleted.\n(6) That the appellant

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

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

section 251 of the IT Act, 1961 by\ndirecting the Assessing Officer to verify the claim made by the\nassessee u/s 80IA which amounts to setting aside the issue\nwhich is not permissible as per provisions of the aforesaid\nsection.\n\n2.\nThe Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the\ndisallowance of Rs.2

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. 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

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

disallowance of donations Page 52 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 paid to various outside trusts. Hence we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 1 to 5 raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are hereby dismissed. DCIT

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

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance of donations Page 52 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 paid to various outside trusts. Hence we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 1 to 5 raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are hereby dismissed. DCIT

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

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

67,042/-being 25% of legal expenses as had been made in the assessment.\n4. BECAUSE the amount of expenses claimed under the above mentioned head was fully supported by proper bills and vouchers and the same were duly accounted for in the books of account which had been subjected to twin audits and no defect or discrepancy having been

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

67,042/-being 25% of legal expenses as had been made in the assessment.\n4. BECAUSE the amount of expenses claimed under the above mentioned head was\nfully supported by proper bills and vouchers and the same were duly accounted for in\nthe books of account which had been subjected to twin audits and no defect or\ndiscrepancy having been

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

67,042/-being 25% of legal expenses as had been made in the assessment.\n\n4. BECAUSE the amount of expenses claimed under the above mentioned head was\nfully supported by proper bills and vouchers and the same were duly accounted for in\nthe books of account which had been subjected to twin audits and no defect or\ndiscrepancy having

DINESH CHAND JAIN,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Dinesh Chand Jain, Vs. Dy. Cit, 7/189, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur- Central Circle-1, Kanpur 280002, U.P. Pan: Adbpj2732Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Add Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.04.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1.1 Because The Id. "Cit(A)" Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Withdrawing The Refund Of Interest Amounting To Rs. 8,20,163/-, Paid To The Assessee U/S 244A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On Excess Amount Of Self-Assessment Tax Paid U/S 140A Of The Act. 1.2 Because The View Taken By Id. "Cit(A)" While Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer Is Based On Misinterpretation Of The Provisions Of Clause (B) Of Sub-Section (1) Of Section 244A Of The Act, As Applicable At The Relevant Point Of Time. 2. Because, In Any Case & Without Prejudice To The Grounds Hereinfore, While Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Withdrawing The Interest Paid To The Assessee U/S 244A Of The Act, The Ld. "Cit(A)" Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Of Payment Of Interest On Excess Amount Paid U/S 140A Was Debatable In Nature & It Could Not Have Been Decided By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 154 Of The Act As The Same Did Not Constitute A Mistake Apparent From The Record.

disallow interest under section 244A of the Act on the refund of self-assessment tax wherein the issue was a debatable one and that the ld. AO could not have invoked provisions under section 154 because only mistakes apparent from the record could be rectified under that section. 4. The ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

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

67,042/-being 25% of legal expenses as had been made in the assessment.\n\n4. BECAUSE the amount of expenses claimed under the above mentioned head was\nfully supported by proper bills and vouchers and the same were duly accounted for in\nthe books of account which had been subjected to twin audits and no defect or\ndiscrepancy having

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

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

67,042/-being 25% of legal expenses as had been made in the assessment.\n\n4. BECAUSE the amount of expenses claimed under the above mentioned head was\nfully supported by proper bills and vouchers and the same were duly accounted for in\nthe books of account which had been subjected to twin audits and no defect or\ndiscrepancy having

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

67,042/-being 25% of legal expenses as had been made in the assessment.\n4. BECAUSE the amount of expenses claimed under the above mentioned head was\nfully supported by proper bills and vouchers and the same were duly accounted for in\nthe books of account which had been subjected to twin audits and no defect or\ndiscrepancy having been

ARPIT KUMAR TOMAR,UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Arpit Kumar Tomar Income Tax Officer V. Flat No.B3, B21, Krishna 6(1), Lucknow, Uttar Garden, Sadarpur, Ghaziabad, Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh-201021. Pan:Ajbpt8004B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri V. Balaji, Fca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 02 2025 O R D E R

disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form No. 67; (ii) filing of Form No. 67 is not mandatory but a directory requirement and (iii) DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act. I am of the view that the issue was not debatable and there was only one view

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

67,927/- can not be said to be representing "chargeable interest" under the "Act". 11. BECAUSE the impugned order as passed by the learned first appellate authority stands wholly vitiated as the same has been passed without appreciating/giving due consideration to the material and information that had been placed on record and various pleas as had been raised before

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is held to be partly allowed

67,927/- can not be said to be representing \"chargeable interest\" under the\n\"Act\".\n11. BECAUSE the impugned order as passed by the learned first appellate\nauthority stands wholly vitiated as the same has been passed without\nappreciating/giving due consideration to the material and information that had\nbeen placed on record and various pleas as had been raised before