DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance of Rs.2,03,752/-made by the Assessing Officer was in order" . 15. Income exempt under Section 10 in a particular assessment year, may not have been exempt earlier and can become taxable in future years. Further, whether income earned in a subsequent year would or would not be taxable, may depend upon the nature of transaction entered into

U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-VI, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance of Rs.2,03,752/-made by the Assessing Officer was in order" . 15. Income exempt under Section 10 in a particular assessment year, may not have been exempt earlier and can become taxable in future years. Further, whether income earned in a subsequent year would or would not be taxable, may depend upon the nature of transaction entered into

DCIT, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance of Rs.2,03,752/-made by the Assessing Officer was in order" . 15. Income exempt under Section 10 in a particular assessment year, may not have been exempt earlier and can become taxable in future years. Further, whether income earned in a subsequent year would or would not be taxable, may depend upon the nature of transaction entered into

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance of Rs.2,03,752/-made by the Assessing Officer was in order" . 15. Income exempt under Section 10 in a particular assessment year, may not have been exempt earlier and can become taxable in future years. Further, whether income earned in a subsequent year would or would not be taxable, may depend upon the nature of transaction entered into

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance of Rs.2,03,752/-made by the Assessing Officer was in order" . 15. Income exempt under Section 10 in a particular assessment year, may not have been exempt earlier and can become taxable in future years. Further, whether income earned in a subsequent year would or would not be taxable, may depend upon the nature of transaction entered into

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 exemption claimed under section 10(268) of the Act is deleted giving relief to the appellant. 7(1) Ground of appeal number 4 is as under- 4. That the Ld. A.O. was wrong in making of addition of Rs.6,95

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNIAN, LTD. ,LAKHIPUR KHERI vs. ITO WARD-3(4), LAKHIPUR-1

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance u/s 80P of the Act was upheld for the reason that the return of income was filed beyond the due date as specified in section 139(1) of the Act. 4.5 Further, at this juncture, it would not be irrelevant to discuss the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CC v. Dilip Kumar & Company

GOLDEN COMTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KANPUR, KANPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Golden Comtrade Private Limited, Vs. Acit-5, 58/43, Birhana Road, Kanpur Kanpur-208001 Pan: Aaccg 1622R (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowances as made by the Ld. Assessing Officer: a) Rs. 95,000/- -- Addition/Disallowance U/s 14A read with Section 8(2)(iii) b) Rs. 97,133/- ---Disallowance

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

95,30,196/-. The disallowance of exemption U/s 11 as well as holding the income as taxable business income is again in utter disregard to authoritative judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority [(2013) 38 taxmann.com 246 (All. HC)], Moradabad Development Authority [ITA No. 3 of 2017 dt. 03.05.2017] [Lucknow bench, Alld

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

95,10,794/- being sale proceeds of license and duty drawback which were not part of industrial activity and hence not eligible for deduction under section 80IB of the Act and they also withdrew the appeal against the addition of Rs. 4,70,419/- on account of statutory dues not paid before the due date of the filing of return

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

95,10,794/- being sale proceeds of license and duty drawback which were not part of industrial activity and hence not eligible for deduction under section 80IB of the Act and they also withdrew the appeal against the addition of Rs. 4,70,419/- on account of statutory dues not paid before the due date of the filing of return

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. The assessee relied upon a number of decisions made by various Courts as under: -\n1\n(2019) 112 taxmann.com 322 PCIT-2 vs Caraf Builders\n& Contructions (P.) Ltd\n2\n(2019) 106 taxmann.com 181 (SC) PCIT vs GVK Project\nand Technical Services Ltd\n3\n(2018) 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC) CIT (Central

CO-OP-CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION GOLA,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. ITO RANGE-3(4), LAKHIMPUR KHERI-1

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaco-Op Cane Development The Income Tax Officer, V. Union Gola Range-3(4) C/O Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Lakhimpur Kheri-262701. Lakhimpur Kheri-262701, Up. Pan:Aaaac1960A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 10 2024 O R D E R

disallowance u/s 80P of the Act was upheld for the reason that the return of income was filed beyond the due date as specified in section 139(1) of the Act. 4.5 Further, at this juncture, it would not be irrelevant to discuss the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CC v. Dilip Kumar & Company

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT, LUCKNOW

disallowance upheld solely on\nthe basis of the said circular, was not valid as per law. It was submitted that\nauthorities below had failed to appreciate, that the assessee had not claimed any\nexempt income in the income tax return. It was also submitted that the assessee had\nnot made investments on which dividend income was earned. Thus

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY. CIT, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

disallowance upheld solely on\nthe basis of the said circular, was not valid as per law. It was submitted that\nauthorities below had failed to appreciate, that the assessee had not claimed any\nexempt income in the income tax return. It was also submitted that the assessee had\nnot made investments on which dividend income was earned. Thus

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

In the result all six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

95,30,196/-. The disallowance of exemption U/s 11 \nas well as holding the income as taxable business income is again in utter disregard to \nauthoritative judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Lucknow \nDevelopment Authority [(2013) 38 taxmann.com 246 (All. HC)], Moradabad Development \nAuthority [ITA No. 3 of 2017 dt. 03.05.2017] [Lucknow bench, Alld

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

95,30,196/-. The disallowance of exemption U/s 11 \nas well as holding the income as taxable business income is again in utter disregard to \nauthoritative judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Lucknow \n5\nDevelopment Authority [(2013) 38 taxmann.com 246 (All. HC)], Moradabad Development \nAuthority [ITA No. 3 of 2017 dt. 03.05.2017] [Lucknow bench, Alld

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

95,30,196/-. The disallowance of exemption U/s 11\nas well as holding the income as taxable business income is again in utter disregard to \nauthoritative judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Lucknow\n5\nDevelopment Authority [(2013) 38 taxmann.com 246 (All. HC)], Moradabad Development \nAuthority [ITA No. 3 of 2017 dt. 03.05.2017] [Lucknow bench, Alld