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

68,111/- 2. BECAUSE, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law, and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.38,52,24,618/- being provision of gratuity written off in the books, without considering the fact that such provisions have already been added in the income of the assessee over the last many years and hence cannot

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

68,111/- 2. BECAUSE, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law, and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.38,52,24,618/- being provision of gratuity written off in the books, without considering the fact that such provisions have already been added in the income of the assessee over the last many years and hence cannot

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

68,111/- 2. BECAUSE, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law, and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.38,52,24,618/- being provision of gratuity written off in the books, without considering the fact that such provisions have already been added in the income of the assessee over the last many years and hence cannot

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

68,990/- in group\ncompanies/sister concerns. This entail disallowances to be\ncomputed as per the provision of 14A of the IT. Act read with\nRule 8D of the IT. Rules, 1962 as in the recent ruling by the\nHon'ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, New\nDelhi, (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC), the same position as discussed

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

section 144(2) of the Act,\nAssessing Officer is duty bound to record his/her dissatisfaction on correctness\nof claim of assessee before invoking the provision of section 144. As it is\nevident from language of section 144 as well as of rule 8D, recording of the\ndissatisfaction of Assessing officer as regard to correctness of claim

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

In the result, appeals vide I

section 14A r.w.r 8D do not draw any relation to such expenditures in relation to exempt income.\n\n2.1\nThe Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts as the assessee invested a substantial amount of Rs.15,93,68

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of the Rules. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of PCIT vs Amadeus India (P.) Ltd (2022) 145 taxmann.com 311 and PCIT vs IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (2017) 84 taxmann.com 186 (Delhi). With regard to ground no. 3, it was submitted that the said deduction of Rs.16

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

Section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of the Rules. Reliance was placed on the decision\nin the case of PCIT vs Amadeus India (P.) Ltd (2022) 145 taxmann.com 311 and\nPCIT vs IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (2017) 84 taxmann.com 186\n(Delhi). With regard to ground no. 3, it was submitted that the said deduction

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of the Rules. Reliance was placed on the decision\nin the case of PCIT vs Amadeus India (P.) Ltd (2022) 145 taxmann.com 311 and\nPCIT vs IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (2017) 84 taxmann.com 186\n(Delhi). With regard to ground no. 3, it was submitted that the said deduction

ACIT CIRCLE 3, LUCKNOW vs. RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 112 To 114/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2015-16 To 2017-18 Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Vs. Dcit Bank Ltd P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. 226001. Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan:Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) A.Y.2016-17 Acit Circle-3 Vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh Ltd Kar Bhawan, Lucknow Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan: Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Addl. Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Four Appeals Have Been Have Been Filed For The Assessment Years 2015 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18 By The Assessee & Revenue Ssessee & Revenue Against The Respective Orders Of The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024. While The Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, The Revenue 18, The Revenue

Section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of the Rules. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of PCIT vs Amadeus India (P.) Ltd (2022) 145 taxmann.com 311 and PCIT vs IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (2017) 84 taxmann.com 186 (Delhi). With regard to ground no. 3, it was submitted that the said deduction of Rs.16

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 14A r.w.r 8D do not draw any relation to such expenditures in relation to exempt income. 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts as the assessee invested a substantial amount of Rs.15,93,68

M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. D/ACIT-1,CENTRAL-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 14A r.w.r 8D do not draw any relation to such expenditures in relation to exempt income. 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts as the assessee invested a substantial amount of Rs.15,93,68

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUCKNOW, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW vs. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., VIBHUTI KHAND GOMTI NAGAR LKO

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 14A r.w.r 8D do not draw any relation to such expenditures in relation to exempt income. 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts as the assessee invested a substantial amount of Rs.15,93,68

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. M/S MAHENDRA EDUCATIONAL PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is dismissed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 68 of the I.T. Act and an addition of Rs.2,95,000/- 14A of the Act read with

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

14A of the Act in the proper perspective and tat the\ninterest claimed by the assessee was not related to the funds deployed in\nactivities from which income had been shown during the year, the\nassessment was revised. The Tribunal pointed out that the assessee had\nborrowed secured loans by issue of redeemable non-convertible\ndebentures to the tune

SANDEEP KUMAR GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-6, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sandeep Kumar Gupta V. The Dcit-6 314/30, Mirza Mandi Lucknow Chowk, Lucknow Pan:Adgpg1431J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27 06 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 06 2024 O R D E R

68 of the Act, disallowances of Rs.93,047/- under section 37(1) of the Act and Rs.1,88,137/- under section 14A

ADITYA FLEXIPACK LLP,KANPUR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR, KANPUR

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

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

68,040/- for Assessment Year 2019-20, representing employees’ shares towards contribution to ESIC & EPF, which the assessee had deposited beyond the due date mentioned in the provisions of the relevant section of the Income Tax Act and that Page 3 of 16 however, the deposits were made before the filing of return of income for the relevant assessment

ADITYA FLEXIPACK LLP,KANPUR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, KANPUR

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

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

68,040/- for Assessment Year 2019-20, representing employees’ shares towards contribution to ESIC & EPF, which the assessee had deposited beyond the due date mentioned in the provisions of the relevant section of the Income Tax Act and that Page 3 of 16 however, the deposits were made before the filing of return of income for the relevant assessment