INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

220/- in the assessment year 2007-08 and Rs.80,10,634/- in the\n assessment year 2008-09 for interest earned on these schemes but not reflected in\nthe income and expenditure account. With regard to the revolving fund, contained in\nSchedule 9B (B) of the balance-sheet of the assessee, the ld. AO observed that in the\n assessment

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. 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

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. 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

220/- in the assessment year 2007-08 and Rs.80,10,634/- in the\n assessment year 2008-09 for interest earned on these schemes but not reflected in\nthe income and expenditure account. With regard to the revolving fund, contained in\nSchedule 9B (B) of the balance-sheet of the assessee, the ld. AO observed that in the\n assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

220/- in the assessment year 2007-08 and Rs.80,10,634/- in the\n assessment year 2008-09 for interest earned on these schemes but not reflected in\nthe income and expenditure account. With regard to the revolving fund, contained in\nSchedule 9B (B) of the balance-sheet of the assessee, the ld. AO observed that in the\n assessment

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

220/- in the assessment year 2007-08 and Rs.80,10,634/- in the\n assessment year 2008-09 for interest earned on these schemes but not reflected in\nthe income and expenditure account. With regard to the revolving fund, contained in\nSchedule 9B (B) of the balance-sheet of the assessee, the ld. AO observed that in the\n assessment

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)

TDS CPC, on processing of the said correction statement reiterated the late filing fee of Rs.14,600/- and also levied interest under section 220(2

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.

220/- under section 68 of the Act and brought the same to tax under section 115BBE. Finally, the ld. AO observed that the assessee had refunded deposits/advances in cash to certain persons amounting to Rs. 34,98,688/-. He held that the provisions of section 269T were applicable and he therefore, initiated penalty proceedings under section 271D

STATE BANK OF INDIA, FUND SETTLEMENT OFFICE,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)-II, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

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

220 Taxman 414) (Allahabad High Court) • Lintas India Ltd. v. ACIT (5 SOT 310) (Mumbai ITAT) 37. The Bank also places reliance on the following judicial precedents which have upheld that where the employer has made a bona fide estimate regarding deduction of tax at source, it cannot be regarded as an assessee in default in terms of section

STATE BANK OF INDIA,,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

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

220 Taxman 414) (Allahabad High Court) • Lintas India Ltd. v. ACIT (5 SOT 310) (Mumbai ITAT) 37. The Bank also places reliance on the following judicial precedents which have upheld that where the employer has made a bona fide estimate regarding deduction of tax at source, it cannot be regarded as an assessee in default in terms of section

STATE BANK OF INDIA,,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

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

220 Taxman 414) (Allahabad High Court) • Lintas India Ltd. v. ACIT (5 SOT 310) (Mumbai ITAT) 37. The Bank also places reliance on the following judicial precedents which have upheld that where the employer has made a bona fide estimate regarding deduction of tax at source, it cannot be regarded as an assessee in default in terms of section

S.B.I RBO III (ADMIN OFFICE),KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

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

220 Taxman 414) (Allahabad High Court) • Lintas India Ltd. v. ACIT (5 SOT 310) (Mumbai ITAT) 37. The Bank also places reliance on the following judicial precedents which have upheld that where the employer has made a bona fide estimate regarding deduction of tax at source, it cannot be regarded as an assessee in default in terms of section

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION ,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

220(2) of I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs. 2,450/- in order passed u/s 200A of 1. T. Act, pertaining to F. Y 2012-13 (For 3rd QTR in Form 26Q) without appreciating that the Late Fee u/s 234E cannot be charged relating to the period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015. 2. The Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred on facts

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

220(2) of I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs. 2,450/- in order passed u/s 200A of 1. T. Act, pertaining to F. Y 2012-13 (For 3rd QTR in Form 26Q) without appreciating that the Late Fee u/s 234E cannot be charged relating to the period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015. 2. The Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred on facts

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

220(2) of I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs. 2,450/- in order passed u/s 200A of 1. T. Act, pertaining to F. Y 2012-13 (For 3rd QTR in Form 26Q) without appreciating that the Late Fee u/s 234E cannot be charged relating to the period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015. 2. The Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred on facts