M/S. SHARANG PLAST ENGGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

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

disallowance of Rs.6,73,200/- under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. The disallowances were made by the AO on grounds

NEETA TIWARI,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSING OFFICER 4(2), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 Neeta Tiwari V. The Assessing Officer 4(2) 24, Akansha Lucknow Eldeco Udyan Ii Uttratia, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Afopt6232J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

disallowance of Rs.18,73,502/- on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution to PF / ESI invoking the provisions of section

NETPLAST PVT.LTD.,KANPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(3)(1), KANPUR

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

73,000/- which is the market value of the property. The\nalleged addition of Rs.84,00,000/- during the year under\nconsideration in land by debiting land account and crediting Arpit\nAgarwal's account is an afterthought just two show enhanced\nvalue of land. No documentary evidence was attached to show\nthat Smt. Nirmala Devi had received Rs.84

M/S. AVADH HOSPITAL AND HEART CENTRE,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-6, LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

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

disallowed the claim of deduction for payment of Rs.6,54,382/- under section 36(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act on account of employees contribution of EPF & ESIC and for Assessment Year 2019-20, the assessee filed its return on 21.10.2019, declaring total income of Rs.1,73

M/S AVADH HOSPITAL AND HEART CENTRE,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-6, LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW- NEW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

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

disallowed the claim of deduction for payment of Rs.6,54,382/- under section 36(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act on account of employees contribution of EPF & ESIC and for Assessment Year 2019-20, the assessee filed its return on 21.10.2019, declaring total income of Rs.1,73

M/S. NARAIN PROPERTIES LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ACIT-VI, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 43(5) and 73 of I.T. Act. Accordingly speculation loss is disallowed. After discussion the income is computed as under

KWALITY RESTAURANT,KANPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 Kwality Restaurant V. The Cit(A) 16/97, The Mall Delhi Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaafk8712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.9.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 115 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Which Is Also Supported By An Affidavit. 3. I Have Gone Through The Application For Condonation Of Delay As Well As The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee & Heard The Contention Of The Ld. D.R. On The Issue Of Condonation Of Delay. The Ld. D.R. Has Objected To The Condonatiion Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Is Shifting The Blame Of Delay On Its Counsel. 4. Having Considered The Reasons Explained By The Assessee In The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That The Assessee Has Explained The Cause Of Delay That Due To An Oversight Of The Counsel Of The Assessee, Necessary Steps For Filing

73 years and due to Covid-19 Pandemic, there was distraction in the office functioning of the Counsel of the assessee, which has led to the misplacement of the appeal file, resulting into delay in filing the present appeal. Accordingly, I am satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing of the present appeal, hence

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

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

section 2(24)(x) r.w.s.36(1)(va), the entire contribution made by\nthe employees during the relevant year was disallowed and added to the total income\nof the assessee. In the profit and loss account, the assessee had claimed an expense of\nRs.1,34,46,857/- under the head, “provisions and contingencies”. These consisted of,\n\"provisions for non-performing

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

73,237/- vide order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Aggrieved with this assessment framed by the AO, the appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 3. During the course of appellate proceedings, Shri S.C. Agarwal, Advocate and Shri Pradeep Agarwal, Senior Accounts Officer appeared before me and filed written

SHIVA NEETI DEVELOPERS,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2014-15 Shiva Neeti Developers V. The Income Tax Officer 3A/185, Azad Nagar Ward 3(4) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Abqfs8644D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.8.2017 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Kanpur For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. Addition.... Rs.44,68,162/-“ 8. The facts recorded by the Assessing Officer are not in dispute, as the assessee has filed the audit report in Form No.10CCB during the course of assessment proceedings manually and it was not filed electronically. The Assessing Officer Page 7 of 13 has further mentioned

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

73 taxman 98 (Pat).On the issue of section 11(2) that had been\nraised by the ld. Special Counsel, the ld. AR submitted that accumulation of income\nunder section 11(2) was the ground of the assessee and not that of the Department\nand therefore, the Department could not raise this issue in the course of this appeal.\nShe

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)

disallowed the claim of deduction of Rs.4,66,10,927/- under section 80IA of the Act. 7. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed a detailed submission which, for the sake of clarity, is reproduced hereunder: “That in the relevant year assessee had filed its return of income on 28.11.2014 (within due date of u/s 139(1) of Income

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

disallowances of expenses on\nnon adherence of TDS provision under section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is\nestimated.\n\n9. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition of Rs.12,01,000/- computed addition of Rs.61,31,000/- \nagainst actual consideration of Rs.31

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

73 taxman 98 (Pat).On the issue of section 11(2) that had been\nraised by the ld. Special Counsel, the ld. AR submitted that accumulation of income\nunder section 11(2) was the ground of the assessee and not that of the Department\nand therefore, the Department could not raise this issue in the course of this appeal.\nShe

U.P SAMAJ KALYAN NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS U.P STATE CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.),LUCKNOW vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, LUCKNOW

73,237/- vide order under Section 143(3) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Aggrieved with this\nassessment framed by the AO, the appeal has been preferred by the appellant.\n3. During the course of appellate proceedings, Shri S.C. Agarwal, Advocate and\nShri Pradeep Agarwal, Senior Accounts Officer appeared before me and filed\nwritten

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P FOREST CORPORATION, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2016-17

73,527/- and disallowance of repayment of loans amounting to Rs.16,99,99,664/. 5. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law and facts by allowing exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the assessee is involved in the activities of trade/commerce/business and is as such hit by the provisions

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

section 11, did not consider the findings of the AO with\nrespect to section 11(2), section 13(1)(d) and section 13(3). He has pointed out that\nonce the ld. CIT(A) had held that the income of the assessee should be computed in\nthe manner specified in section 11, taking into account information given in the\naudit

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

73 taxman 98 (Pat).On the issue of section 11(2) that had been\nraised by the ld. Special Counsel, the ld. AR submitted that accumulation of income\nunder section 11(2) was the ground of the assessee and not that of the Department\nand therefore, the Department could not raise this issue in the course of this appeal.\nShe