JAMUNA DEVI NARESH CHANDRA MAHAVIDYALAYA,JALAUN vs. ITO-TDS, KANPUR

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

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

02. BECAUSE, the CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in fact, without appreciation of the fact and upheld the fee amounting to Rs.24,382/- in late filing of TDS return in 24Q Q4 and ignoring/overlooking the CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2015 dated 27.11.2015, in which it is clear mentioned that delay filing fee of TDS return will be waiver prior

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

TDS provision under section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is\nestimated.\n\n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,000/- being disallowances of expenses\nunder section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is estimated.\n\n5. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow

M/S MOTOR & GENERAL SALES LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Motor & General Sales V. Income Tax Officer Ltd (Tds)-Ii 11, M. G. Marg, Hazratganj, Commissioner Of Income Lucknow-226001. Tax (Appeals-Ii), Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Lknmo0336A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Ca Respondent By: Shri S. H. Usmani, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 06 11 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02 02 2026 O R D E R

TDS)-II 11, M. G. Marg, Hazratganj, Commissioner of Income Lucknow-226001. Tax (Appeals-II), Kanpur- 208001. PAN:LKNMO0336A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rakesh Garg, CA Respondent by: Shri S. H. Usmani, CIT- DR Date of hearing: 06 11 2025 Date of pronouncement: 02 02 2026 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.: This

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

02,371/- as certained liability. 5. That assesse craves leave to additions/ amendments in the Grounds of the Cross Objection during the course of the proceedings of the appeal.” CO. No. 16/LKW/2016 1. That the departmental appeal is bad in law as well as on facts and liable to be dismissed. 2. That the Ld. A.O. mis-construed

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

02,371/- as certained liability.\n5. That assesse craves leave to additions/ amendments in the Grounds of the\nCross Objection during the course of the proceedings of the appeal.\"\nCO. No. 16/LKW/2016\n1. That the departmental appeal is bad in law as well as on facts and liable to be\ndismissed.\n2. That the Ld. A.O. mis-construed

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.

TDS deducted during the year @ 10% under section 194J was Rs. 1,85,139/- and therefore, he computed the amount of professional and technical expenses at Rs. 18,51,388/-. The above facts were also stated in the tax audit report Annexure 7. Therefore, the ld. AO only allowed expenses to the extent of Rs. 18,51,388/- and disallowed

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

02-06-2024 and filed its submissions. The submissions filed by the appellant are extracted below:\n\"(a) The captioned appeal is in reference to the impugned order under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act 1961, dated 29-03-2023 passed by the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS

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

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

02-06-2024 and filed its submissions. The\nsubmissions filed by the appellant are extracted below:\n\"(a) The captioned appeal is in reference to the impugned order under section\n201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act 1961, dated 29-03-2023 passed by the\nLearned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS

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

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

02-06-2024 and filed its submissions. The\nsubmissions filed by the appellant are extracted below:\n\"(a) The captioned appeal is in reference to the impugned order under section\n201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act 1961, dated 29-03-2023 passed by the\nLearned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS

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

02-06-2024 and filed its submissions. The\nsubmissions filed by the appellant are extracted below:\n\n\"(a) The captioned appeal is in reference to the impugned order under section\n201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act 1961, dated 29-03-2023 passed by the\nLearned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS

M/S. TIRUBALA INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-VI, KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Tirubala International Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of C-7, Panki Industrial Area, Vs. Income Tax, Range-Vi, Kanpur Kanpur, U.P. Pan:Aaect2086J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Vikas Garg, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Dcit-6, Kanpur Passed On 19.12.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ao, Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Addition Of Rs. 29,164/- On Account Of Late Payment Towards Employees Contribution To Esi. 2. That The Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate That The Payment Of Rs.29,164 Towards Employee'S Contribution To Provident Fund Was Made Before The "Due Date" Of Filing Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 Therefore There Could Not Be Any Addition Of The Aforesaid Amount To The Returned Income. 3. That The Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate That The Due Date As Mentioned In 36(1) (Va) Is To Be Read In Conjunction With Section 43B(B)

TDS has rightly not been deducted on payments made to Aitex Textile Research Lab. In the circumstances there was no scope for disallowance under section 40(a)(i)(a).In support of his averments the Ld AR placed reliance on the decision of the Authority for Advanced Rulings in the case of Interteck Testing Servies

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

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

TDS however, he added the\nsaid expenditure as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. This is\nnot a case which falls under Section 69C. Clearly, Section 69C refers to the\nsource of the expenditure and not to the expenditure itself. Consequently, it\nis held that the AO was clearly wrong in treating the said expenditure as\nunexplained expenditure under Section

FUTURE PHARMA PVT.LTD,KANPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, KANPUR

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

02,953\nTDS\n3,37,324\nof Remark\nTDS has not\nbeen made on\nthe\nbelow\npayment\nRs.15,000/- as\nprovided under\nsec. 194H.\nIt has been further stated that 15% of amount shown as payable has already been\ndisallowed by the Assessing Officer. The challans of amount of TDS deposited have also been\nenclosed.\nRegarding Director's remuneration amounting

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

section 149 of the Act. The assessment based on illegal proceedings initiated u/s 148 is liable to be quashed. 4. Because the assessment order passed by AO, after prior approval of Range Head dated 21.03.2024 (AY 2019-20 – 22.03.2024) is not accordance with law and peculiar facts of the case and ratio laid down by Hon’ble Courts. LdCIT

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

section 149 of the Act. The assessment based on illegal proceedings initiated u/s 148 is liable to be quashed. 4. Because the assessment order passed by AO, after prior approval of Range Head dated 21.03.2024 (AY 2019-20 – 22.03.2024) is not accordance with law and peculiar facts of the case and ratio laid down by Hon’ble Courts. LdCIT

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

section 149 of the Act. The assessment based on illegal proceedings initiated u/s 148 is liable to be quashed. 4. Because the assessment order passed by AO, after prior approval of Range Head dated 21.03.2024 (AY 2019-20 – 22.03.2024) is not accordance with law and peculiar facts of the case and ratio laid down by Hon’ble Courts. LdCIT

ACIT-2(1)(1), KANPUR, KANPUR vs. UP STATE YARN COMPANY LIMITED , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraacit-2(1)(1) Up State Yarn Company V. 15/295-A, Civil Lines, Kanpur, Limited Uttar Pradesh-208001. 1 Smith Square, 14/72, Civil Lines, Uttar Pradesh- 208001. Pan:Aaacu1674K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 11 2024 O R D E R

02 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in on facts in relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Ahmedabad Vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd (2010) 189 Taxman 322(SC) without appreciating that the facts in the case of the assessee are different. The said judgment relates to a case in which

M/S MODEL EXIM,KANPUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriam/S. Model Exim Pcit (Central) V. 624-C, Defence Colony, 7/81-B, Tilak Nagar, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010. Kanpur. Pan:Aadfm6163H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Smt Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 29 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 11 2024 O R D E R

02,797/- 61,22,087/- 8. The assessment was completed u/s 153C of the Act on 31.03.2013. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax called for the record and was of the opinion that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, he issued show cause notice