BINDU KUMAR,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-1(1), LUCKNOW-NEW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

TDS refunds received during the previous year. (ii) Annexure-II, being copy of statement of OD A/c No. 2170257000255 for the period from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2018 held by the assessee in Canara Bank in the name of M/s Gurudin Bindu Kumar Enterprises, the proprietorship concern of the assessee. (iii) Annexure-III, being copy of ledger a/c of Akhilesh Kumar (nephew

M/S SHIVANSH INFRAESTATE PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Block-A, Surajdeep Income Tax, Range-6, 3Rd Floor, Complex, 1-Jopling Road, 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001 P.K. Complex, Lucknow Pan: Aaqcs5896P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 30.12.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1- The Ld. Cit (A) Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Ground That Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito-6(1) Lucknow On 01.04.2016 Without Appreciating That Jurisdiction Of Case Lies With Dcit, Range-6, Lucknow, Hence The Notice Issued By Ito-6(1) Is Without Jurisdiction & Invalid. Further, No Notice U/S 143(2) Has Been Issued By Jurisdictional Dcit, Range-Vi, Lucknow Within The Period As Per Section 143(2) Of L. T. Act. Hence The Present Assessment Is Invalid, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2- The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Upheld The Addition Without Appreciating That Ld. A. O. Rejected The Books Of Account & Instead Of Estimating The Net Profit, Additions Were Made On The Basis Of Same Books Of Account By Disallowing Expenses Under Different Heads Total Rs. 1,75,91,607/- & Addition U/S 68 R. W. S. 115Bbe Of I. T. Act For Rs. 1,32,78,833/- Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law.

carry forward to the subsequent year as per the provision of section 72. 7. On the issue of commission that had been incorporated as a project development expenditure under the head, “current assets” and allocated to profit and loss accounts in the ratio of per square feet of land sold, the ld. CIT(A) held that since the assessee could

U.P CIVIL SECRETARIAT PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE BANK,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

forward of losses claimed by the assessee. 5.1 Because the learned 1st appellate authority ought not to have disallowed Rs.7,47,412/- in respect of Bank contribution on PF contribution. 5.2 Because the learned 1st appellate authority erred in ignoring the fact that no query was raised during the assessment proceeding by A.O. and also the issue was not confronted

U.P CIVIL SECRETARIAT PRIMARY COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

forward of losses claimed by the assessee. 5.1 Because the learned 1st appellate authority ought not to have disallowed Rs.7,47,412/- in respect of Bank contribution on PF contribution. 5.2 Because the learned 1st appellate authority erred in ignoring the fact that no query was raised during the assessment proceeding by A.O. and also the issue was not confronted

U.P CIVIL SECRETARIAT PRIMARY COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

forward of losses claimed by the assessee. 5.1 Because the learned 1st appellate authority ought not to have disallowed Rs.7,47,412/- in respect of Bank contribution on PF contribution. 5.2 Because the learned 1st appellate authority erred in ignoring the fact that no query was raised during the assessment proceeding by A.O. and also the issue was not confronted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RANGE-, LUCKNOW., LUCKNOW vs. SH. SHARAD DEORA, LUCKNOW.

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

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

TDS during the year.” 2. Revenue has also raised revised grounds of appeal, which are reproduced as under: “1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by deleting addition made u/s 68 of the Act for Rs.2.09 crores on account of failure on part of assessee to establish creditworthiness in I.T.A. No.57/Lkw/2023 Assessment Year

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW., LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

carried the matter in separate appeals before first appellate authority unsuccessfully. Therefore, the assessee came before us in present appeals on as many as 8-9 common grounds which in our considered view not in consonance with rule 8 of ITAT-Rules, 1963. However, the sum and substance of grievance is direct against the action of tax authorities below

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

carried the matter in separate appeals before first appellate authority unsuccessfully. Therefore, the assessee came before us in present appeals on as many as 8-9 common grounds which in our considered view not in consonance with rule 8 of ITAT-Rules, 1963. However, the sum and substance of grievance is direct against the action of tax authorities below

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

carried the matter in separate appeals before first appellate authority unsuccessfully. Therefore, the assessee came before us in present appeals on as many as 8-9 common grounds which in our considered view not in consonance with rule 8 of ITAT-Rules, 1963. However, the sum and substance of grievance is direct against the action of tax authorities below

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

carried the matter in separate appeals before first appellate authority unsuccessfully. Therefore, the assessee came before us in present appeals on as many as 8-9 common grounds which in our considered view not in consonance with rule 8 of ITAT-Rules, 1963. However, the sum and substance of grievance is direct against the action of tax authorities below

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

carried the matter in separate appeals before first appellate authority unsuccessfully. Therefore, the assessee came before us in present appeals on as many as 8-9 common grounds which in our considered view not in consonance with rule 8 of ITAT-Rules, 1963. However, the sum and substance of grievance is direct against the action of tax authorities below

ACIT(E), LUCKNOW vs. M/S. BHAGWANT INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, BIJNOR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

loss account. An income and\nexpenditure account contain all revenues earned and expenses incurred by\nan educational institution during an accounting period. Since, the fund\nbased accounting has relevance for educational institutions, the Income\nand Expenditure Account have to show all the funds restricted,\nunrestricted fund, 'Corpus', ‘Designated Funds' and ‘General Funds'.\nThe AO disallowed the scholarship expenses payable amounting

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)

forwarded these details to the Assessing Officer, asking for his remand report. Vide letter (pages 258 to 261 of the assessee’s paper book), (‘APB, for short) dated 08.05.2017, the Assessing Officer furnished his Remand Report before the ld. CIT(A). Therein, the Assessing Officer stated that: “i) The first issue is regarding addition of Rs.509,192,350/- as unexplained

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

loss on sale of Fixed Assets Rs. 8,83,439/-along with provision for incentive allowance Rs. 21,40,000/- under the head Employee Benefit Expenses' and yet taking an adverse view of the matter which amounts to arbitrary exercise of power.3 5. That the Ld. PCIT was wrong in referring the ITAT order dated

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

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

TDS relating to FDRs of unutilized fund. The ld. CIT(A) has held that the interest on unutilized funds which belonged to clients of the assessee were required to be credited to their account and therefore, this income cannot be said to have accrued to the assessee. The Hon'ble Tribunal

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

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

TDS relating to FDRs of unutilized fund. The ld. CIT(A) has held that the interest on unutilized funds which belonged to clients of the assessee were required to be credited to their account and therefore, this income cannot be said to have accrued to the assessee. The Hon'ble Tribunal

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

TDS. 13. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in wrongly setting aside the issue regarding verification of following expenses to the file of Ld. Assessing Officer despite of the fact that all the bill/ voucher were produced before him: a.Audit fee of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- b.Flood Controland Development expenses

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

TDS. 13. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in wrongly setting aside the issue regarding verification of following expenses to the file of Ld. Assessing Officer despite of the fact that all the bill/ voucher were produced before him: a.Audit fee of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- b.Flood Controland Development expenses

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

TDS. 13. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in wrongly setting aside the issue regarding verification of following expenses to the file of Ld. Assessing Officer despite of the fact that all the bill/ voucher were produced before him: a.Audit fee of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- b.Flood Controland Development expenses