UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

92,323/- out of which an amount of Rs.92,95,51,686/- (correct amount is Rs. 86,95,73,737/-) has been disallowed under section

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

In the result, appeals vide I

disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was made\nsolely on the basis of investment by Assessee Company in SPVs without\nverifying objects of investment and understanding of relevant provision of law.\nIt is also submitted that section 14A carries heading 'Expenditure\nincurred in relation to income not includible in total income'\n\nAs per Section

SHAKUN SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 4(1), LUCKNOW

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

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

disallowance of Rs.2,92,440/- (for Assessment Year 2018-19) and Rs.3,84,030/- ( for Assessment Year 209-10) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution to PF / ESI invoking the provisions of section

SHAKUN SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 4(1), LUCKNOW

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

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

disallowance of Rs.2,92,440/- (for Assessment Year 2018-19) and Rs.3,84,030/- ( for Assessment Year 209-10) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution to PF / ESI invoking the provisions of section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. COMMERCIAL ENGINEERS & BODY BUILDERS CO. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

92 ITD 119 (Del.), it has been held that before making any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, the onus to establish the nexus of the same with the exempt income, is on the revenue. In “Wimco Seedlings Limited Vs. DCIT”, 107 ITD 267 (Del.) (TM), it has been held that there can be no presumption that the assessee must

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. COMMERCIAL ENGINEERS & BODY BUILDERS CO. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

92 ITD 119 (Del.), it has been held that before making any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, the onus to establish the nexus of the same with the exempt income, is on the revenue. In “Wimco Seedlings Limited Vs. DCIT”, 107 ITD 267 (Del.) (TM), it has been held that there can be no presumption that the assessee must

M/S INDIA PESTICIDES LTD,BAREILLY vs. DCIT-1, BAREILLY, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S India Pesticides Ltd. V. The Dcit-1 35-A, Civil Lines Bareilly Bareilly Tan/Pan:Aaaci3591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Written Submission) Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

92,88,890/-. The return was processed by the CPC, Bangalore, who disallowed the PF and ESI, amounting to Rs.9,21,920/-, observing that the same was deposited after the due date but before the due date of filing of the return. The assessee filed rectification application under Section

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(FORMERLY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),AYODHYA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

92,10,505/- being the balance in 'infrastructure development fund account'. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount in the above statutory fund are specifically received by virtue of Government Order dt. 15.01.1998 and are meant for utilization in the development activities exclusively. Ld CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the unutilized left over amount

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (FORMELY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),LUCKNOW vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

92,10,505/- being the balance in 'infrastructure development fund account'. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount in the above statutory fund are specifically received by virtue of Government Order dt. 15.01.1998 and are meant for utilization in the development activities exclusively. Ld CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the unutilized left over amount

M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

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

disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax ,1961 .The A.O. while passing the order u/s 143(3) of foe Act in this case has not examined the above facts , Accordingly the assessment order on this point is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. ITA No.701 & 702/LKW/2017 Page

M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

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

disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax ,1961 .The A.O. while passing the order u/s 143(3) of foe Act in this case has not examined the above facts , Accordingly the assessment order on this point is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. ITA No.701 & 702/LKW/2017 Page

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

disallowance of labour cess under section 43B of the Act which is Rs. 3,68,33,045/- as per profit and loss account may be restricted to the amount paid by the due date of filing of return of income as per the said provisions. The case relied upon by the AO does not come into the picture

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR., KANPUR vs. M/S. SUSHRUT INSTITUTE OF PLASTIC SURGERY PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic Central Circle 2 Surgery Private Limited Kanpur 29, Shahmeena Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.15/Lkw/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No.30/Lkw/2023] Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic V. The Acit Surgery Private Limited Central Circle 2 29, Shahmeena Road Kanpur Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Cross - Objector) (Respondent)

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.16,99,00,480/-. 2.4 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Act. ITA No.30/LKW/2023

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

disallowed them. Besides this, he also made a\ndisallowance of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-ax Act, 1961. This order\nwas revised and cancelled by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the\nAct on the ground that the expenses claimed for the creation of brand\nwere capital expenditure for creating an intangible asset. On appeal by\nthe assessee

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(4), RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Bareilly V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2472C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Amritsar V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs4654E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Kanpur(I) V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2468Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Guwahati V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2462E (Appellant) (Respondent)

92,351/- (Rs.4,07,72,868/- + Rs.46,84,19,842/-) of WIP acquired by the assessee during Assessment Year 2011-12, ITA No.24 to 39/LKW/2019 Page 10 of 46 under section 69C of the Act, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). This forms the issue in Ground No. 4. 14. The ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer

MIRZA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KANPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), KANPUR

The appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

92 CA(3) of the Act of Rs.3,20,71,405/- for computing the profit and gains of Eligible Business under section 80 IC of the Act and in making addition of Rs.96,21,421/- to the income of the assessee company. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making disallowance

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

disallowance w/s 14(a)(i) for failure to deduct tax at source u/s 195 on commission paid to non- resident agents, which was mentioned in the show cause notice would not, however, be open to Assessing Officer for adjudication as in the appellate stage the issue has already been decided in favour of the assessee, Accordingly in term of clause

RAJEEV JAISWAL AND OTHERS,BAREILY vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2020-21 Rajeev Jaiswal & Others V. Assessment Unit (Nfac), 72,Newada Sheikhan, Income Tax Department Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh-243001 Pan:Aaqfr4268R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Smt. Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 05 08 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 08 2024 O R D E R

section 69A of the Act. Further, during the year under consideration, the assessee has shown expenses towards salary and wages of Rs.9,64,800/- this figure was Rs.4,84,800/- for the AY. 2019-10. The increase in turnover is not in proportion to the increase in salary. As the assessee has failed to give any justification/explanation in support

BABIAN,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (1), LUCKNOW-NEW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharybabian Income Tax Officer (1) V. B-155, Bhootnath Market, Lucknow New, Indira Nagar, Lucknow-226016. Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57, Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aacfb9247N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, Ca Respondent By: Shri. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 04 2025 O R D E R

section 143(1)(a) is outside the scope of the provisions and, therefore, for this reason alone, the same deserves to be deleted. 2. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in making the disallowance of Rs.1,92