ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KANPUR vs. M.K.U PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

TDS under section 195 r.w.s. 9 of the Act. In response, the assessee filed a submission that the payment did 4 CO No.23/LKW/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 M.K.U. Pvt. Ltd. not fall under the expression, ‘any other sum chargeable under the provision of this act’ appearing in section 195 of the Act. Furthermore, it was submitted that since the charging section

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

Section 263 of the Act which came\ninto effect from 01/06/2015 onwards. However, the same is used by him\nonly in the revision order passed u/s.263 of the Act. This goes to prove\nthat the assessee was never given an opportunity to address the\napplicability of provisions of Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act\nduring the course

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

143(3) was erroneous in the first place. The AO made inquiries during the course of assessment proceedings, and the appellant filed detailed responses supported by documentary evidence. The Ld. PCIT has merely substituted his own opinion over the AO's conclusion, which is impermissible under law. In any case assessment order cannot be revised on the ground that

AMAN INFRAPROPERTIES P. LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 143(3) of the Act by the ACIT-1, Lucknow, whereas while disposing of the appeal, he has dealt with altogether a difference issue decided by the Assessing Officer, CPC-TDS

AMAN INFRAPROPERTIES P. LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 143(3) of the Act by the ACIT-1, Lucknow, whereas while disposing of the appeal, he has dealt with altogether a difference issue decided by the Assessing Officer, CPC-TDS

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

143(3) was erroneous in the first place. The AO\nmade inquiries during the course of assessment proceedings, and the appellant\nfiled detailed responses supported by documentary evidence. The Ld. PCIT has\nmerely substituted his own opinion over the AO's conclusion, which is\nimpermissible under law.\nIn any case assessment order cannot be revised on the ground that

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

TDS penalty Rs.16,970/- which was claimed ITA No.146/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 6 as revenue expense in Income and Expenditure account in the order u/s 154 r.w.s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in failing to consider that the order

HARSAHAIMAL SHIAMLAL JEWELLERS PVIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), BAREILLY

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Harsahaimal Shiamlal Jewellers Shri Vimalendu Verma, Private Limited, 148, Civil Lines, Vs. Pcit (Central), Lucknow, U.P. Bareilly, U.P.-243001 Pan:Aacch3785L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Act, Passed By The Ld. Pcit, Central ,Lucknow On 17.02.2022, Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer, Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act On 29.07.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred, Are As Under:-

143(3). viii. Description of amounts offered for taxation under section 115BBE. ix. Copy of ledger account of recipient under section 40A(2)(b). 5. The ld. AR also took us through the reply filed by the assessee on 5.11.2018, in response to such notice which was placed on pages 51 and 56 of the paper book and pointed

SUPERHOUSE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. CIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 356 & 357/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2014-15 & A.Ys. 2015-16 Superhouse Limited, 150 Feet Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Road, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010 International Taxation-3, Delhi Pan: Aabcs9328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cit, (International Taxation)-3, Delhi Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act For The A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16, Both Dated 29.03.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit Has Set Aside The Earlier Orders Of The Assessing Officer For Making Of Fresh Orders In Accordance With The Directions Issued By Her. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act & In Doing So, Has Sought To Substitute His Opinion With The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed After Undertaking Extensive & Detailed Consideration Of The Issue By The Ito (Tds). 2. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming The Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed By The Ito (Tds) Was Unerring & In Consonance With The Settled Principles Of Law. 3. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order While Premised On An Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Further Suffers From Non-Application Of Mind Since The Submissions Of The Assessee Have Not Been Considered [As Illustrated Infra]. A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16

TDS on commission payment made on export sales, under section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In course of the same, it quoted the legal provisions. Alongwith this reply, the assessee submitted copies of agreement with Foreign Commission Agents alongwith CDX forms and copies of export invoices on which commission had been remitted to agents, copies of balance-sheet

MR.SHITIJ DHAWAN,KANPUR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 Mr. Shitij Dhawan V. The Assessing Officer 122/235, Fazalganj Special Range Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Acqpd3380G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

TDS; that due to switchover of the Income Tax Website from TCS to Infosys, many glitches in the e-portal of the Department have occurred, for which extension of time has also been granted by the CBDT from time to time; and that therefore, there being no deliberate intention on the part of the assessee, but the delay in filing

PAWAN JAISWAL,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1(3), KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Pawan Jaiswal V. The Income Tax Officer 1(3) 29/43, Ghumni Bazar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpj4999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

143(3) read with sections 263 and 144B of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. The NFAC partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by restricting the disallowance made under section 68 of the Act to 50%, i.e., Rs.2,44,000/- and with regard to the addition of Rs.4,68,172/- on account of Sundry Creditors

SKYHIGH INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-6(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaand\Nshri, Nikhil Choudhary\Nita No. 242/Lkw/2025\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nskyhigh Infrastructures Pvt\Nltd\Nv.\Ncp-2 Ii Floor, Gomti Plaza,\Nvikas Khand, Gomti Nagar,\Nlucknow-226010.\Nincome Tax Officer-6(1)\Npratyaksh Kar Bhawan,\Nlucknow-226001.\Npan:Aatcs1687B\N(Appellant)\N(Respondent)\Nappellant By:\Nshri P. K. Kapoor, Ca\Nrespondent By:\Nshri Amit Kumar, Dr\Ndate Of Hearing:\N10 06 2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N31 07 2025\Norder\Nper Nikhil Choudhary.:\Nthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of\Nthe Learned Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi\Nu/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, For Short) Dated\N17.01.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of\Nthe Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Assessing\Nofficer U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 28.12.2019. The Grounds Of\Nappeal Are As Under: -\N“1.

143(3) by holding\nthe same as illegal and bad in law.\nWITHOUT PREJUDICE TO AFORESAID\n3.1 BECAUSE the Id. “CIT(A)” has erred in law and on facts in upholding the\naddition of Rs.1,67,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer by treating unsecured\nloans received from various parties as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of\nthe

M/S JIL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2021-22 M/S Jil Information Technology Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Limited, 54, Ja Annexe, Basant Lok, Income Tax, Range-3, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 Lucknow Pan: Aaacj8827B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Addl/Jcit(A), Panaji, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 19.03.2025, Wherein The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Under Section 143(1) Passed For The A.Y. 2021-22 By The Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru On 13.11.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ld. Cit(A)"] Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Disposing The Appeal Of The Appellant By Passing An Ex-Parte Order Which Is In Gross Violation Of Natural Justice & Fair Play As The Assessee Was Not Provided Reasonable Opportunity To Have Its Say On The Merit Of The Additions Made By The Ld. Ao. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Appreciating That The Addition Of Rs.78,17,622/-And Also The Addition Of Rs.74,913/-Do Not Fall Under The Purview Of The Clauses Enshrined In Section 143(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 & Also Failed To Appreciate That The Additions Made In The Present Case Are In The Nature Of Debate

section 143(1) of the I.T. Act 1961. 3. By passing the ex-parte order, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.78,17,622/-made by the Ld. A.O. by grossly ignoring the fact that the amount of Rs.78,17,622/-claimed as deduction by the assessee on actual payment

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

TDS of Rs.21,549/- as not pressed. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance made by AO on account of Preoperative expense of Rs.95,632/-. 9. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance made by AO on account of travelling expenses of Rs.2,91,960/-. 10. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

UP GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.743 & 746/Lkw/2024 & Ita No. 30/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Vs. Assessing Officer, Nfac Welfare, Lucknow Pan:Aaatu0957A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 23.10.2024, 28.10.2024 & 2.01.2024 In The Appeals Preferred Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3), The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aac(1) & The Penalty Order Under Section 270A. The Grounds Of Appeal In These Three Appeals Are As Under:-

143(3), the penalty order under section 271AAC(1) and the penalty order under section 270A. The grounds of appeal in these three appeals are as under:- ITA No.743/LKW/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order, which is unlawful, unjustified and against the principles

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.

section 143(2) of L. T. Act. Hence the present Assessment is invalid, bad in law and 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 and instead of estimating the Net Profit, additions were made on the basis of same books of account by disallowing

U P SUGAR MILLS COGEN ASSOCIATION,LUCKNOW vs. AO EXEMPTION CIRCLE , LUCKNOW

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.145/Lkw/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Up Sugar Mills Cogen Association, 403, Chintels House,16-Station Road, Lucknow, Up-226001 Pan: Aaatu2238A . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

TDS to ₹11,60,810/-. 2.3. In response to intimation, the assessee approached Revenue u/s 154 of the Act on 23/03/2022 with a request to reprocess by correcting mistake in (a) denying exemption (b) disallowing expenditure against the income. The Revenue rejected the request in limine on 16/09/2022 stating that, ‘latest return for the same PAN & AY has been transferred

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)

sections 143 (3)/142 (2A) of the Act, subsequent to special audit of the accounts of SICCL. The assessee also stated that the DCIT, Central Circle – 6, New Delhi, the Assessing Officer of SPCL, had, in his order dated 27.3.14, passed for Assessment Year 2011 – 12, not recorded any adverse finding concerning the WIP transferred by SPCL to the assessee