DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

70,000 the disallowance of the amount under Section 14 A of the Act was calculated thus: "1,21,03,367 x 6,88,70

U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-VI, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

70,000 the disallowance of the amount under Section 14 A of the Act was calculated thus: "1,21,03,367 x 6,88,70

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

70,000 the disallowance of the amount under Section 14 A of the Act was calculated thus: "1,21,03,367 x 6,88,70

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

70,000 the disallowance of the amount under Section 14 A of the Act was calculated thus: "1,21,03,367 x 6,88,70

DCIT, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

70,000 the disallowance of the amount under Section 14 A of the Act was calculated thus: "1,21,03,367 x 6,88,70

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Section 14A of the Act were not applicable. It was submitted that the total investment as on 31.03.2016 as per the balance-sheet were Rs.46,79,70,619/-. This included GOI Bonds of Rs.33,175,690/-, on which interest was received, Uttar Bharat Nagariya Sahkari Bank of Rs.2,55,000/-, on which interest was received and investment

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) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are\nunjust, illegal and arbitrary.\n4. That the additions made amounting to Rs.13,26,600/- u/s.41(1) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 are unjust and on the facts illegal and arbitrary.\n5. The disallowances of Rs.10,00,000/- made out of packing expenses\nwithout proper verification that the entire

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

section 80IB at 100% for Unit- II, had diverted its profits. He therefore, disallowed claim of 80IB on the second unit amounting to Rs. 1,91,12,870/-. He also noticed that certain statutory amounts were payable by the assessee on the due date of the filing of the return and therefore, he disallowed these also to the extent

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

section 80IB at 100% for Unit- II, had diverted its profits. He therefore, disallowed claim of 80IB on the second unit amounting to Rs. 1,91,12,870/-. He also noticed that certain statutory amounts were payable by the assessee on the due date of the filing of the return and therefore, he disallowed these also to the extent

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

70,000 the disallowance of the amount under Section 14 A of the Act was calculated thus: "1,21,03,367 x 6,88,70

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

70,000 the disallowance of the amount under Section 14 A of the Act was calculated thus: "1,21,03,367 x 6,88,70

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

70,000 the disallowance of the amount under Section 14 A of the Act was calculated thus: "1,21,03,367 x 6,88,70

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

70,222/- is\nwrongly upheld.\n(4) The Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the finding of Ld. A. O. for\nnot allowing deduction of Leave Encashment of Rs.2,05,225/- being paid during the\nyear.\n(5) The Ld. C.I.T. (A), NFAC w. r. t. Grounds of Appeal No. 2 and3 failed to appreciate

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

70,222/- is\nwrongly upheld.\n(4) The Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the finding of Ld. A. O. for\nnot allowing deduction of Leave Encashment of Rs.2,05,225/- being paid during the\nyear.\n(5) The Ld. C.I.T. (A), NFAC w. r. t. Grounds of Appeal No. 2 and3 failed to appreciate

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

section 144A of the Act. I find that the liability for arrears of salary (DA Arrears) and leave encashment is based on the Instructions issued by the Government of UP and is not an unascertained liability. The provision is actual liability and is allowable as per mercantile system of accounting followed by the Appellant. The disallowance

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

Section 14A of the Act were not applicable. It was submitted that the total investment as on 31.03.2016 as per the balance-sheet were Rs.46,79,70,619/-. This included GOI Bonds of Rs.33,175,690/-, on which interest was received, Uttar Bharat Nagariya Sahkari Bank of Rs.2,55,000/-, on which interest was received and investment

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

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

disallowance of deduction under section\n36(1)(viia) and 36(1)(viii), it was again conceded that due to a mistake, the assessee\nhad not claimed the statutory deduction under section 36(1)(viia) in respect of any\nprovision for bad and doubtful debts even though the same was allowable to it.\nHowever, it had made the provision in this

INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUCKNOW vs. RAJEEV KUMAR KAPOOR, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 44AB of the Income Tax Act. During the entire financial year, the assessee had not done a single sale / purchase in cash. All the sale purchases were either through banking channels or through sale / purchase adjustment. Furthermore, it was submitted that 7 of the 8 parties from whom purchases had made had confirmed the said purchases. Only