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 153A and upheld by the CIT(A) is bad in law and be quashed. 04. Because in any case, the order passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law and be quashed. 05. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance of deduction of Rs. 1,91,12,870/- claimed

M/S RAHMAN INDUSTRIES LTD,KANPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Rahman Industries Ltd. V. The Acit-6 184/167, Wazidpur, Jajmau Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaacr6862N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Sheela Chopra, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 03 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10 03 2022 O R D E R

disallowance of Rs.1,16,69,219/- claimed as deduction under section 801B, which disallowance is contrary to facts, bad in law and be deleted

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:

801B, the deduction should been allowed on the basis that the decision favourable to the assessee should have been accepted. 7. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-1) has further erred in law as well as on facts in not appreciating that provisions of section 80IB are incentive provisions and the same were to be liberally construed

M/S ALLIANCE BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Alliance Builders & Asst.Commissioner Of V. Contractors Ltd Income Tax, Central Circle-2 C/O 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Allen Ganj, Kanpur. Pan:Aaeca8217A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 11 2024 O R D E R

disallowing the claim u/s 801B(10) of the Act. 5. After careful consideration of the facts, as indicated above, as also the past behavior of the assessee company particularly with regard to its willful withholding of the tax audit report which it was mandatorily required to be obtained in accordance . with the provisions stipulated u/s 44AB

M/S ALLAHDAD TANNERY,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

801B read with section 801A (9) /80IB (13) specifically provided\nthat where any amount of profits and gains of any Industrial taking of an\nassessee is claimed and allowed u/s 80IA for any assessment year, in\nsuch a situation deduction to the extent of such profits and gain shall not be\nallowed under any of sections 80HH to 8ORRA. That

M/S MODEL EXIM,KANPUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriam/S. Model Exim Pcit (Central) V. 624-C, Defence Colony, 7/81-B, Tilak Nagar, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010. Kanpur. Pan:Aadfm6163H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Smt Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 29 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 11 2024 O R D E R

disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act, 1961. The AO while passing the order u/s 153C of the Act in this case has not examined the above facts, accordingly order on this point is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Deduction u/s 801B

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. M/S ROHIT SURFACTANTS PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance under the head. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the relief Rs.14,20,72,292/- on account of deduction U/s 801B & 80IC without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to file his return to income for the A.Y. under consideration as per Section