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

In the result, appeals vide I

73,429/-\n\nAs per formula given in Rule 8D(ii) for the current year, disallowance was to be\nworked out as under: AxB/C, i.e. 116610727 x 159368990/9611573429 =\n19335162 i.e. Rs.1,93,35, 162/-\n\nFurther in terms of Rule 8D(iii), disallowance was proposed as under: Half\npercent of average investment

JCIT(OSD), CC-1, LKO, LUCKNOW vs. ACP TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

disallow the claim of\ndepreciation. (AY. 2007-08 to 2009-10)\n1. M/s.Dimension Construction\nPvtLtd., 1148, EWard, Respondent\nSykes Extension, Kolhapur.\nITA Nos.540and541/PUN/2016\nAssessmentYears:2005-06and\n2007-08dt. 05/01/2018\nWe have heard the rival submissions and perused the material\non record. We find that identical issue of depreciation on the\nintangible asset namely, right to collection of toll from

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

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

disallowed despite the assessee having been engaged in the education activities, duly registered under section 12A of he Act. (ii) That the above exemption has been denied invoking the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, without giving any specific findings in this regard. Page 18 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 4.1 Section

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

disallowed despite the assessee having been engaged in the education activities, duly registered under section 12A of he Act. (ii) That the above exemption has been denied invoking the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, without giving any specific findings in this regard. Page 18 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 4.1 Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Because CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the adhoc disallowance to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- out of total disallowance of Rs.1,86,259/- made by the assessing officer under various heads viz, repair and maintenance (machinery), repairs and maintenance (building) and vehicle running and maintenance.\n2. Because CIT(A) [himself having held

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LIMITED MAHOLI AYYUBI CHAMBER, RANIGANJ, LAKHIMPUR KHERI-262001,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SITAPUR-NEW, SITAPUR

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

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

disallowance of claim does not lead to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I. T. Act. (4) The penalty imposed is highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon by the Ld. A.Ο.” 2. The facts of the case

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

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

1 to 5\nrelate to addition of Rs.84,00,000/- on\naccount of unexplained expenditure. The AO has held as under:\n“Further, if the land was actually purchased for a consideration of\nRs.1,20,00,000/-, stamp duty would have been paid on\nRs.1,20,00,000/-. Stamp duty has been paid only on\nRs.42,73,000/- which

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

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:- Interest income as shown Rs. 21,22,810” 3. The assessee’s appeal against the assessment order was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 15.03.2010. The assessee has filed this appeal in Income

SH. SUKHVINDER SINGH,KANPUR vs. PR CIT, CENTRAL, KANPUR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

73,690/-. Along with the assessment order, the Assessing ITA Nos.190 & 191/LKW/2020 Page 4 of 30 Officer also recorded a detailed office note, which is reproduced below for the ease of reference: - “1. The seized material as well as appraisal report has duly been considered/examined while passing this assessment order. 2. During the course of search and seizure proceedings, cash

HORIZON DWELLINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriahorizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd V. Pcit, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (Up)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aacch6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

73,830/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act and during the proceedings, under section 143(3) of the Act; the assessing officer examined the details of various expenses and conducted detailed scrutiny. Your Honours kind attention is drawn to the fact that the Assessing officer has made a detailed inquiry by issuing