DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. M/S SHREE PATESHWARI ELECTRICALS AND ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2017-18

68 of the Act and has imposed tax as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. It was submitted that the learned CIT(A) has deleted such addition even though the assessee did not submit evidence for increase in the cash income and evidence regarding the IDs of customers and names of customers were also not submitted

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S SHRI RAMSWAROOP CHARITABLE TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Y. 2013-14

264 ITR 110 has held as under:- "Normal depreciation can be considered as a legitimate deduction in computing the real income of the assessee on general principles or under section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Income of a charitable trust derived from building, plant and machinery and furniture is liable to be computed

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

68 of IT Act. On these confirmations filed appellant provided the current and latest address of the lender to the AO whereas AO got the verification done at old addresses in Kolkata by issuing a commission u/s 131(l)(d) to the Kolkata Investigation Wing on 27.02.2018 to submit a report on following points: 1. Identity, genuineness of the transactions

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

68 of IT Act. On these confirmations filed appellant provided the current and latest address of the lender to the AO whereas AO got the verification done at old addresses in Kolkata by issuing a commission u/s 131(l)(d) to the Kolkata Investigation Wing on 27.02.2018 to submit a report on following points: 1. Identity, genuineness of the transactions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 and application of section 115BBE, as above, the tax is once charged as per the normal provisions of the Act and again u/s 115BBE. Thus, the same income is taxed twice which is not permissible under law. 3.3.1 Even if hypothetically it is assumed that the donations to the corpus were received against payment of cash

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 and application of section 115BBE, as above, the tax is once charged as per the normal provisions of the Act and again u/s 115BBE. Thus, the same income is taxed twice which is not permissible under law. 3.3.1 Even if hypothetically it is assumed that the donations to the corpus were received against payment of cash

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

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee's total income was\ndetermined at Rs.78,18,230/- as against income assessed at\nRs.28,18,230/- vide earlier assessment order dated 18.02.2015\npassed u/s 143(3) of I.T. Act. In the aforesaid assessment order\ndated 28.12.2019 a further addition of Rs.50

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

68,254/-\n18,39,650/-\nAddition on account of depreciation\n5,61,657/-\nTotal income (rounded off)\n24,01,310/-\n2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the\nLd. First Appellate Authority challenging the initiation of reassessment\nproceedings as well as challenging the\nadditions/disallowances on merits. However, the appeal before\nthe Ld. First Appellate Authority came to be dismissed

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

68,254/- 18,39,650/- Addition on account of depreciation 5,61,657/- Total income (rounded off) 24,01,310/- 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority challenging the initiation of re- ITA No.360, 361 & 362/LKW/2020 Page 3 of 24 assessment proceedings as well as challenging the additions/disallowances on merits. However, the appeal before

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

68,254/- 18,39,650/- Addition on account of depreciation 5,61,657/- Total income (rounded off) 24,01,310/- 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority challenging the initiation of re- ITA No.360, 361 & 362/LKW/2020 Page 3 of 24 assessment proceedings as well as challenging the additions/disallowances on merits. However, the appeal before

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

In the result, appeals vide I

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

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

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 10(37) of the Act. vi. Appellant never claimed exemption from income tax for transfer of agricultural land, while claiming said land being not a capital asset. Whereas, appellant claimed exemption for the very reason that land transferred is an agricultural land, which is a capital asset. Income tax on transfer of such land is exempt

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 10(37) of the Act. vi. Appellant never claimed exemption from income tax for transfer of agricultural land, while claiming said land being not a capital asset. Whereas, appellant claimed exemption for the very reason that land transferred is an agricultural land, which is a capital asset. Income tax on transfer of such land is exempt