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. DCIT (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

LUCKNOW EVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. I.T.O., 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

KWALITY RESTAURANT,KANPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 Kwality Restaurant V. The Cit(A) 16/97, The Mall Delhi Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaafk8712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.9.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 115 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Which Is Also Supported By An Affidavit. 3. I Have Gone Through The Application For Condonation Of Delay As Well As The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee & Heard The Contention Of The Ld. D.R. On The Issue Of Condonation Of Delay. The Ld. D.R. Has Objected To The Condonatiion Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Is Shifting The Blame Of Delay On Its Counsel. 4. Having Considered The Reasons Explained By The Assessee In The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That The Assessee Has Explained The Cause Of Delay That Due To An Oversight Of The Counsel Of The Assessee, Necessary Steps For Filing

47. Likewise, this court underlined the rule, regarding interpretation of taxing statutes, in Commissioner of Income Tax-III v Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana.' Recently, in Union of India & Ors. vs. Exide Industries Limited & Ors," this court examined, and repelled a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 43B, especially the provision requiring actual payment, in respect of leave encashment benefit of employees

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

2. There is a delay of 72 days in filing of the appeal. The assessee has filed application dated 22.3.2022, seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal, stating therein that due to glitches in the e-portal of the Income Tax Department, as has repeatedly been admitted by the Ministry of Finance, the order of the Assessing Officer

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,, LUCKNOW

2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii).\n3. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that as per section 144(2) of the Act,\nAssessing Officer is duty bound to record his/her dissatisfaction on correctness\nof claim of assessee before invoking the provision of section 144. As it is\nevident from language of section 144 as well as of rule

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

2, Civil Lines, Gonda u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961,\nwithout appreciating the fact that the percentage of valuation found in total\ninvestment on construction of building as declared by the assessee and as\nestimated by the Valuation Officer has been worked out at 25.8%\n3164654X100/12460146), which is over and above 10%.\n\n3. Whether on facts and circumstances

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

47,07,819/-\n4\nthis included the provision for advance tax of Rs.30,00,000/-. Without appreciating the same, the Ld. AO had added this back and this amounted to a double addition and may be, therefore, deleted. With regard to addition of Rs.41,00,431/- on account of employees share of provident fund, it was submitted that the actual

ACIT CIRCLE 3, LUCKNOW vs. RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 112 To 114/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2015-16 To 2017-18 Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Vs. Dcit Bank Ltd P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. 226001. Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan:Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) A.Y.2016-17 Acit Circle-3 Vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh Ltd Kar Bhawan, Lucknow Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan: Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Addl. Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Four Appeals Have Been Have Been Filed For The Assessment Years 2015 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18 By The Assessee & Revenue Ssessee & Revenue Against The Respective Orders Of The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024. While The Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, The Revenue 18, The Revenue

47,07,819/- and ITA. No.141/LKW/2024 this included the provision for advance tax of Rs.30,00,000/-. Without appreciating the same, the Ld. AO had added this back and this amounted to a double addition and may be, therefore, deleted. With regard to addition of Rs.41,00,431/- on account of employees share of provident fund, it was submitted that

M/S RAJ KUMAR SINGH & CO.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

47,40,729 24,55,66,126 If the above amounts of notional surpluses are excluded from the partners account, the partner a/c would result into debit balances at Rs.4,80,41,502 (24,55,66,126 - 20,75,16,624). The A.R. was confronted with the query that if partners account are recasted by excluding the entries of these

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

47,07,819/- and\n4\nthis included the provision for advance tax of Rs.30,00,000/-. Without appreciating\nthe same, the Ld. AO had added this back and this amounted to a double addition\nand may be, therefore, deleted. With regard to addition of Rs.41,00,431/- on account\nof employees share of provident fund, it was submitted that

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

47,07,819/- and\n4\nITA Nos.112 to 114/LKW/2024\nITA. No.141/LKW/2024\nthis included the provision for advance tax of Rs.30,00,000/-. Without appreciating\nthe same, the Ld. AO had added this back and this amounted to a double addition\nand may be, therefore, deleted. With regard to addition of Rs.41,00,431/- on account\nof employees share of provident

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

2). Where the person responsible for paying any sum chargeable under this Act, (other than salary) to a non resident considers that the whole of such sum would not be income chargeable in the case of recipient, he may make an application to the [Assessing] Officer to determine,[by general or special order], the appropriate proportion of such

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

TDS can not held to be non disclosure of the full particulars. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the notice under Section 147 of the Act to the petitioner stands vitiated in non compliance or fulfilment of the second condition as laid down in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act.” Shri Anil Kumar

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

TDS can not held to be non disclosure of the full particulars. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the notice under Section 147 of the Act to the petitioner stands vitiated in non compliance or fulfilment of the second condition as laid down in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act.” Shri Anil Kumar

PUSHPENDRA SINGH,RAEBARELI vs. DCIT CIRCLE,, FAIZABAD

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Pushpendra Singh V. Dcit Circle, 680, Amar Nagar, Raebareli Faizabad/National E- (U.P)-229001. Assessment Centre Delhi Pan:Axbps1905L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The AO made the total addition of Rs.39,47,686/- and completed the assessment Aggrieved by the said addition/disallowance, the appellant is in appeal and has raised 17 grounds which are adjudicated as under: - 2. Ground no. 1 & 2 are relating to adjustment made