VIDYUT TRANSMISSION KARMACHARI VETAN BHOGI CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. CPC BANGALORE/ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

10 of the Paper book. It is prayed that the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) state as under :- "An incorrect claim if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return" It is further prayed that in the Explanation to section 143(1), the Act has layed out the situations which shall be considered

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 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

801B) which disallowance is arbitrary and be deleted. 06. Because the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that sale proceeds of licence of Rs.2,31,21,485 and duty draw back Rs.95,10,794/- are all part of the revenue account relating to and belonging to the industrial undertaking and its activity the same is eligible for deduction u/s.80IB

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

801B) which disallowance is arbitrary and be deleted. 06. Because the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that sale proceeds of licence of Rs.2,31,21,485 and duty draw back Rs.95,10,794/- are all part of the revenue account relating to and belonging to the industrial undertaking and its activity the same is eligible for deduction u/s.80IB

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

801B, which disallowance is contrary to facts, bad in law and be deleted. 7. Because on a proper consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, even after the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Liberty India Vs. CIT, the facts of the case materially differ, the CIT(A) has erred on facts

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

10) only on that Proportion of the sum which is so chargeable. ((3) Subject to rules made under sub-section (5) any person entitled to receive any interest or other sum on which income tax has to be deducted under sub-section (1) may make an application in the prescribed form to the[Assessing] Officer for the grant