M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. J/DCIT-CC,, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

1) Addition of Rs.79,00,000/- made u/s 68 on account of treatment of Unsecured Loan as unexplained sum. (ii) Addition of Rs.2,37,000/- made u/s 69C on account of estimated commission on alleged unexplained sum. (iii) Disallowance of Rs.17,25,096/-made u/s 37 on account of disallowance of interest on unsecured loan. 6. BECAUSE on the facts

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

1) Addition of Rs.79,00,000/- made u/s 68 on account of treatment of Unsecured Loan as unexplained sum. (ii) Addition of Rs.2,37,000/- made u/s 69C on account of estimated commission on alleged unexplained sum. (iii) Disallowance of Rs.17,25,096/-made u/s 37 on account of disallowance of interest on unsecured loan. 6. BECAUSE on the facts

PREM CHAND YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, LUCKNOW - NEW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Prem Chand Yadav V. The Acit-1 1/374, Sector 1 Lucknow Gomti Nagar Extension Gomti Nagar, Lucknow Pan:Abqpy1283Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Dr Preeti Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 02 07 2024 O R D E R

1. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution and thereby confirming the addition made by the Ld Assessing Officer. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the said dismissal of appeal is wrong and bad in law and it is prayed that the order

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

section 251 of the IT Act, 1961 by\ndirecting the Assessing Officer to verify the claim made by the\nassessee u/s 80IA which amounts to setting aside the issue\nwhich is not permissible as per provisions of the aforesaid\nsection.\n2.\nThe Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the\ndisallowance of Rs.2

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

In the result, appeals vide I

251 of the IT Act, 1961 by directing the Assessing Officer to verify the claim made by the assessee u/s 80IA which amounts to setting aside the issue which is not permissible as per provisions of the aforesaid section.\n\n2.\nThe Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the disallowance of Rs.2

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

1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by accepting the computation of claim of deduction u/s 80IA containing the provisions of sub-section (7) of the said section as the claim was not made while filing the return of income. 1.1 The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by accepting the computation of claim of deduction u/s 80IA containing the provisions of sub-section (7) of the said section as the claim was not made while filing the return of income. 1.1 The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts

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

1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by accepting the computation of claim of deduction u/s 80IA containing the provisions of sub-section (7) of the said section as the claim was not made while filing the return of income. 1.1 The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

section 11.\nWe notice that even while the Assessing Officer was primarily focused on trying to\ndemonstrate that the activities of the assessee parishad were not charitable, he still\nfound time to go through the accounts to observe that the assessee had applied less\nthan 85% of its receipts during the year and was therefore required to file

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

section 11(2), while directing the ld. AO to compute the income in the manner provided under section 11. Accordingly, additional ground number 2 does not seem to fit with the facts of the case and therefore it is also dismissed. This brings us to additional ground number 3 ie that the Ld CIT(A) has not considered

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

section 11. Accordingly, additional ground number 2 does not seem\nto fit with the facts of the case and therefore it is also dismissed. This brings us to\nadditional ground number 3 ie that the Ld CIT(A) has not considered whether the\nmoney of the parishad was being invested in the specified modes or not. In this\ncontext

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

section 11. Accordingly, additional ground number 2 does not seem\nto fit with the facts of the case and therefore it is also dismissed. This brings us to\nadditional ground number 3 ie that the Ld CIT(A) has not considered whether the\nmoney of the parishad was being invested in the specified modes or not. In this\ncontext

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

section 11, declined to allow the assessee the benefit of\naccumulation under section 11(2) in either assessment year because of (i) its failure\nto specify the purpose for accumulation in assessment year 2007-08 and (ii) its\nfailure to file Form No.10 before the completion before the completion of\nassessment and also to specify purpose of accumulation

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

1.\nThe Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by accepting the\ncomputation of claim of deduction u/s 80IA containing the\nprovisions of sub-section (7) of the said section as the claim\nwas not made while filing the return of income.\n\n1.1\nThe Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

section 11, did not consider the findings of the AO with\nrespect to section 11(2), section 13(1)(d) and section 13(3). He has pointed out that\nonce the ld. CIT(A) had held that the income of the assessee should be computed in\nthe manner specified in section 11, taking into account

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)

1, New Delhi, i.e., the Assessing Officer of SICCL had, in scrutiny assessment, accepted the transfer of WIP by SICCL to the assessee during Financial Year 2010 – 11, and had added notional profit on the said transfer, by virtue of order dated 20.11.14, passed under sections 143 (3)/142 (2A) of the Act, subsequent to special audit

BHAWANI DEVELOPERS,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW-NEW

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid\ndirections

68 of the Act of Rs.20,25,54,000/-.\n3.2\nVariation-II\n3.2.1 Variation on account of labour charges\n3.2.2 During the year under consideration, the assessee has debited labour charges to\nthe tune of Rs.5,79,26,290/- against the total contract receipts of 7,89,21,744/- in the profit\nand loss account. During the course of assessment

IBRAHIM INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoorassessment Year 2007-08 Ibrahim International Ltd. Earlier Acit-3, Vs. Kanpur Known As Ibrahim International Trading Co., 40/121, Hospital Road Parade, Kanpur 208001 Pan – Aaafi 9671F (Appellant) (Respondent)

1) to bring the escapement of income to tax in the hands of the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that such direction is beyond the subject matter of appeal and was not warranted as the ld. CIT(A) had to decide the issues before him and reliance in this respect was placed on a decision of Lucknow Bench

SHASHI INFRA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ITO, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Shashi Infra V. The Constructions Pvt Ltd Addl/Joint/Deputy/Asstt/Income 328B, 5Th Lane Rajendra Tax Officer, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226004. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Tan/Pan:Aaucs5802M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

68 of the Act. He therefore, recorded his satisfaction that the Income to the tune of Rs. 14.76 crores had escaped assessment and that this was due to the assessee having failed to disclose truly and fully all facts. 8. Section 147 of the Act provides inter-alia that if the Assessing Officer has the reason to believe that