ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

additional income is offered to cover deficiencies in records for relevant year and preceding years and to cover unproven sundry creditors/remission of liabilities, apart from investment in properties. Further, no adverse inference may be drawn w.r.t. extra profits and seized documents for years prior to AY 2021-22. Further, at the time of the search proceeding

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

additional income is offered to cover deficiencies in records for relevant year and preceding years and to cover unproven sundry creditors/remission of liabilities, apart from investment in properties. Further, no adverse inference may be drawn w.r.t. extra profits and seized documents for years prior to AY 2021-22. Further, at the time of the search proceeding

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

additional income is offered to cover deficiencies in records for relevant year and preceding years and to cover unproven sundry creditors/remission of liabilities, apart from investment in properties. Further, no adverse inference may be drawn w.r.t. extra profits and seized documents for years prior to AY 2021-22. Further, at the time of the search proceeding

BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, ADMINISTRETIVE OFFICE,KANPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) dated 19-09-2023 U/s 271C of the Act is bad in law and void

STATE BANK OF INDIA, OVERSEAS BRANCH,KANPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Additional\nCommissioner of Income Tax (TDS) imposing the penalty of\nRs.1,46,775/- is bad in law for the reason

STATE BANK OF INDIA, OVERSEAS BRANCH,KANPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Additional\nCommissioner of Income Tax (TDS) imposing the penalty of\nRs.1,46,775/- is bad in law for the reason

BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, ADMINISTRETIVE OFFICE,KANPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Additional\nCommissioner of Income Tax (TDS) imposing the penalty of\nRs.1,46,775/- is bad in law for the reason

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

TDS relating to FDRs of un- utilized fund and is not showing the interest in its income which is against the provisions of section 198 & 199 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld.CIT(A), Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

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

addition\nof Rs.8.58,37,385/- on account of interest on unutilized funds without\nappreciating the fact that the assessee is claiming TDS pertaining to interest on\nunutilized funds and as per provisions of Sec. 198 & 199 of the I.T. Act, 1961 the\nabove interest income

SHRI RAMESH SINGH RANA,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.576/Lkw/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Ramesh Singh Rana V. Dcit Range-4 3-B, Talkatora Road, Rajaji 5-Ashok Marg, Aaykar Puram, Lucknow-226017. Bhawan, Lucknow- 226001. Pan:Aggpr0749B अपीलाथ"/(Appellant) ""यथ"/(Respondent) अपीलाथ" "क और से/Appellant By: None ""यथ" "क और से /Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई "क तार"ख / Date Of Hearing: 08 04 2025 घोषणा "क तार"ख/ Date Of 17 04 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R Per Anadee Nath Misshra, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Lucknow Dated 11.06.2019, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

income in the bank account; addition of Rs.4,41,902/- on account of undisclosed TDS; addition of Rs.2,19,999/- on account

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

TDS has been deducted on the same. The said payment has been made as per RBI guidelines and all the details had been submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) but the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the same. On account of addition for depreciation, the Ld. AR submitted that bank was subjected to audit by the statutory auditors

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

addition being\ndifference of Rs.2,70,760/- (Rs.17,91,405 (as per insight portal) Rs.1520645-00 [as\nper Income tax return]) as Interest Income from Allahabad Bank solely on the basis\nof incorrect amount shown as information as per insight portal inspite of the fact as\nper 26AS, assessee has received Interest of Rs.15,20,645/-and TDS

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. D.C.I.T. RANGE-6 (JAO), LUCKNOW

In the result, ita No.164/LKW/2022 stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

addition made by the AO of Rs.39,46,18,444/- being interest on client fund, was deleted by the NFAC. However, the assessee is aggrieved by the direction of the NFAC that the claim of credit of TDS deducted on interest income

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT,RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, ita No.164/LKW/2022 stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

addition made by the AO of Rs.39,46,18,444/- being interest on client fund, was deleted by the NFAC. However, the assessee is aggrieved by the direction of the NFAC that the claim of credit of TDS deducted on interest income

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

additional income is offered to cover deficiencies in records for \nrelevant year and preceding years and to cover unproven sundry \ncreditors/remission of liabilities, apart from investment in properties. \nFurther, no adverse inference may be drawn w.r.t. extra profits and seized \ndocuments for years prior to AY 2021-22.\nFurther, at the time of the search proceeding

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

TDS has been\ndeducted on the same. The said payment has been made as per RBI guidelines and\nall the details had been submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) but the Ld. CIT(A) failed to\nappreciate the same. On account of addition for depreciation, the Ld. AR submitted\nthat bank was subjected to audit by the statutory auditors

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

addition in the reassessment proceedings by the Assessing officer. A Copy of the Assessment order is annexed herewith. Kindly Refer Annexure 1. The Reassessment notice under section 148 was issued on 30.03.2021 which is beyond 4 from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus proviso is applicable as order U/s 143(3) was originally passed in the case

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

addition in the reassessment proceedings by the Assessing officer. A Copy of the Assessment order is annexed herewith. Kindly Refer Annexure 1. The Reassessment notice under section 148 was issued on 30.03.2021 which is beyond 4 from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus proviso is applicable as order U/s 143(3) was originally passed in the case