ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-V, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. PREMIER CAR SALES LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

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

204 4 1065 September, 2013 878 198 4 1080 October, 2013 852 195 3 1050 November, 2013 805 191 3 999 December, 2013 786 190 3 979 January, 2014 789 202 3 994 February, 2014 797 199 6 1002 March, 2014 795 200 4 999 It is evident from the chart above only limited no. of employees are covered

ARUN KUMAR CHATURVEDI,KANPUR vs. ACIT-3, KANPUR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.108/Lkw/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Arun Kumar Chaturvedi 12/9, Vishno Puri Colony, Nawab Ganj, Kanpur. Pan: Abcpc6864F . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 Kanpur . . . . . . . ""थ" / Respondent "ारा / Appearances Assessee By : None [Adjournment Rejected] Revenue By : Mr Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac/Cit(A)’] Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/ 1059274800(1) Dt. 02/01/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 31/03/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act. 2. Briefly Stated Facts Anent To The Case Are That; 2.1 The Assessee Contractor Is A Proprietor Of M/S Hi-Tech Controls Filed His Return Of Income Declaring ₹16,43,890/- For The Year Under Consideration. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny By

204/- standing payable to such sundry creditors were added to income u/s 41(1) of the Act by holding that such amounts are carried in financial statement as payable even after their cessation. In addition to above, on account of assessee’s failure to deduct tax [‘TDS’] from the contractual payment ₹35,84,108/- made/payable to one of the labour

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

Section 68 is that the assessee should file a valid confirmation. Valid confirmation has no specific format but it must contain name, complete address of the lender and PAN of the lender. The confirmation so filed must indicate complete details of transactions (like mode cash or cheque, with number date of cheque with bank details). The Assessing Officer have right

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

Section 68 is that the assessee should file a valid confirmation. Valid confirmation has no specific format but it must contain name, complete address of the lender and PAN of the lender. The confirmation so filed must indicate complete details of transactions (like mode cash or cheque, with number date of cheque with bank details). The Assessing Officer have right

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

Section 68 is that the assessee should file a valid confirmation. Valid confirmation has no specific format but it must contain name, complete address of the lender and PAN of the lender. The confirmation so filed must indicate complete details of transactions (like mode cash or cheque, with number date of cheque with bank details). The Assessing Officer have right

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

Section 68 and in this respect our attention was invited to pages 43 to 54 of the paper book relating to assessment year 2015-16 where a copy of reply, filed before the Assessing Officer, was placed. Our attention was also invited to pages 55 to 72 of the same paper book where a copy of confirmation of account

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

Section 68 and in this respect our attention was invited to pages 43 to 54 of the paper book relating to assessment year 2015-16 where a copy of reply, filed before the Assessing Officer, was placed. Our attention was also invited to pages 55 to 72 of the same paper book where a copy of confirmation of account

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

Section 68 and in this respect our attention was invited to pages 43 to 54 of the paper book relating to assessment year 2015-16 where a copy of reply, filed before the Assessing Officer, was placed. Our attention was also invited to pages 55 to 72 of the same paper book where a copy of confirmation of account

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

Section 68 and in this respect our attention was invited to pages 43 to 54 of the paper book relating to assessment year 2015-16 where a copy of reply, filed before the Assessing Officer, was placed. Our attention was also invited to pages 55 to 72 of the same paper book where a copy of confirmation of account

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

In the result, appeals vide I

204 of 2022\n3.\nCopy of Judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court\nin the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs\nShivam Motors Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 88 of 2014\n4.\nCopy of Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the\ncase of Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd.\n5.\nCopy of Judgment of ITAT Mumbai ITA No.\n5528/Mum/2018