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

disallowance of expenses on\nnon adherence of TDS provision under head TDS @ 30% of expenses of Rs.\n3074000/- where profit

INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUCKNOW vs. RAJEEV KUMAR KAPOOR, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance of TDS payments, it was submitted that the late payment of TDS was a compensatory payment and not a penal

A P S ACADEMY,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-IV(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoorassessment Year 2008-09 M/S A.P.S. Academy, The Income Tax Officer, 239, Leela Building, Vs. Ward –Iv(I), Senani Vihar, Lucknow Raibareilly Road, Lucknow Pan – Aaata 7665H (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act due to non deduction of TDS. The matter in the original assessment

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.

disallowance of Commission Expenses without appreciating that due TDS was made in A. Y.-2014- 15. However, in that year

M/S. MAA RAKLTDANTIKA CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT/ACIT, RANGE-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

TDS. The Assessing Officer has disallowed the payment primarily for the reason, that no TDS has been made at source

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. MAA RAKTDANTIKA CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

TDS. The Assessing Officer has disallowed the payment primarily for the reason, that no TDS has been made at source

SHRI SUDHANSHU RASTOGI,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri. Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sudhanshu Rastogi V. The Acit 217, Eldeco Green Range 1 Gomti Nagar Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Acfpr9504B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri S. H. Usmani, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 29 11 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 12 2022 O R D E R

disallowed in the absence of non-deduction of TDS. The assessee vide letter dated 21.3.2016, explained that the assessee deals

M/S ALLIANCE BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Alliance Builders & Asst.Commissioner Of V. Contractors Ltd Income Tax, Central Circle-2 C/O 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Allen Ganj, Kanpur. Pan:Aaeca8217A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 11 2024 O R D E R

disallowed an amount of Rs.21,549/- on account of interest on TDS. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance. At the time

LEKHESHWAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,AYODHYA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2016-17 Lekheshwar Educational Trust V. Income Tax Officer Lekheshwar Complex Exemption Ward Naka By Pass Lucknow Faizabad (Ayodhya) Pan:Aaatl9836B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 09 2024 O R D E R

disallowance of TDS penalty Rs.16,970/- which was claimed ITA No.146/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 6 as revenue expense in Income

KRISHNA PRAKASH GOEL,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2023-24 Krishna Prakash Goel V. The Income Tax Officer 1(1) Flat No.910, Tulip Grace Tower Bareilly - New Ivri Road, Izzatnagar Bareilly (U.P) Tan/Pan:Admpg6472F (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.05.2025, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Nashik For Assessment Year 2023-24. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee E-Filed His Return Of Income On 24.07.2023, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.2,27,620/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) By The Cpc, Bengaluru, Which Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,27,620/- & Disallowed The Tax Deducted At Source (Tds) Credit Of 2,07,454/-. The Cpc Had Reduced The Tds Credit To Rs.1,35,561/- Against The Tds Claim Made By The Assessee Of Rs.3,43,015/- & Raised A Demand Of Rs.1,41,660/-, Vide Order Dated 29.12.2023. Ita No.491/Lkw/2025 Page 2 Of 5

disallowed the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) credit of 2,07,454/-. The CPC had reduced the TDS credit to Rs.1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA UP

disallowances of expenses\non non adherence of TDS provision under head TDS @ 30% of expenses of Rs.\n3074000/- where profit

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA UP

disallowances of expenses\non non adherence of TDS provision under head TDS @ 30% of expenses of Rs.\n3074000/- where profit

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

disallowances of expenses \non non adherence of TDS provision under head TDS @ 30% of expenses of Rs. \n3074000/- where profit

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

disallowances of expenses \non non adherence of TDS provision under head TDS @ 30% of expenses of Rs. \n3074000/- where profit

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

disallowance on account of interest on TDS of Rs. 2,812/- 8. That the Ld. AO has erred in making

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

disallowance on account of interest on TDS of Rs. 2,812/- 8. That the Ld. AO has erred in making

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

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

disallowance on account of interest on TDS of Rs. 2,812/- 8. That the Ld. AO has erred in making

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

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

disallowance on account of interest on TDS of Rs. 2,812/- 8. That the Ld. AO has erred in making