ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

68,95,000/- made on this account being unsustainable, is therefore liable to be deleted. However, the LD CIT(A) has indicated in her order that the assessee has not placed confirmations in respect of 5 donors amounting to Rs 1,95,40,000/-. Therefore, the donations made by these 5 donors are restored to the file of the assessing

KASHI NATH SETH SARRAF PRIVATE LIMITED,HARDOI vs. ACIT, SITAPUR, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

68 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 attracting the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961. Besides this these provisions are not applicable in A.Y.\n2017-18 for levying 60 percent Tax.\n10. That the learned CIT (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in\nconfirming the levy of interest of Rs.2

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

68,50,000/-, being the grant received from Tourism Department, Government of India and the U.P. Government. It was submitted that the authority was bound to maintain a separate account of such receipts as per Government order and the assessee had in fact spent much more than the receipts on this account. Thus, there was no question of making

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

68,50,000/-, being the grant received from Tourism Department, Government of India and the U.P. Government. It was submitted that the authority was bound to maintain a separate account of such receipts as per Government order and the assessee had in fact spent much more than the receipts on this account. Thus, there was no question of making

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

68,50,000/-, being the \ngrant received from Tourism Department, Government of India and the U.P. Government. It was\n21\nsubmitted that the authority was bound to maintain a separate account of such receipts as per \nGovernment order and the assessee had in fact spent much more than the receipts on this \naccount. Thus, there was no question of making

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

68,50,000/-, being the \ngrant received from Tourism Department, Government of India and the U.P. Government. It was \n23\nsubmitted that the authority was bound to maintain a separate account of such receipts as per \nGovernment order and the assessee had in fact spent much more than the receipts on this \naccount. Thus, there was no question of making

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

68,33,045/- made by the AO is sustained to the extent of Rs. 1,92,38,454/- giving relief of Rs. 1,75,94,591/- to the appellant. The AO is however, directed to allow an amount of Rs. 1,62,38,829/- on payment basis in subsequent assessment year 2013-2014 as per section

U.P SAMAJ KALYAN NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS U.P STATE CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.),LUCKNOW vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, LUCKNOW

199 are not attracted since the interest belongs to the govt. and as such the\nTDS deducted by banks has also been shown along with the gross amount\npayable to the Govt. As such, the Corporation has considered the TDS amount\ndeducted as payable to Govt. and accordingly shown in the books of accounts in\nas much

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

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

SMT. ANJU BANGER,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Anju Banger V. The Ito Prop. M/S Shree Balaji Syntex Ward 2 (1) C-50, Udyog Kunj Kanpur Panki Industrial Estate, Site V Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaqpb0526J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Pradeep Seth, Fca Respondent By: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03 09 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 06 09 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Kanpur, Dated 18/1/2016, For Assessment Year 2005-06, Taking The Following Grounds: 1) That The Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Fact In Confirming Disallowance Of Rs.27,760/- Being Adhoc/Estimated Disallowance Of 10% Out Of Various Expenses Under The Heads Sales Promotion, Travelling Expenses, Conveyance Expenses, General Expenses, Generator Rent & Maintenance Expenses, Repairs & Office Expenses 2) That The Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Further Erred In Law & On Fact In Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Had Not Disputed The Disallowance Out Of Telephone Expenses & That The Bills & Vouchers In Respect Of The Expenses Under The Aforesaid Heads Were Available But Were Never Required To Be Produced.

199 ITR 771 2. CIT vs. K.M. Sugar Mills Ltd., 275 ITR 247. 3. The ld. D.R. was also fair enough to concede the position that these grounds have not been disposed of by this Tribunal. 4. After hearing the rival submissions and going through the order of the Tribunal, I am of the view that a mistake has crept

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

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