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:-

TDS provisions and also for failure to provide details on provisions for advertising expense. In the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore these matters back to the file of the ld. AO and direct the assessee to produce necessary evidences before the ld. AO. Accordingly, ground nos. 6 and 7 are allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Ground

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

234 ITR 541. 8. The Ld.CIT(A)-2, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in in directing to compute the income in the order u/s 143(3)/263 on the basis of returned income and not on the basis of assessed income u/s 143(3) without appreciating the fact that the provisions of section

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

234 ITR 541.\n8. The Ld.CIT(A)-2, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in in directing to\ncompute the income in the order u/s 143(3)/263 on the basis of returned income\nand not on the basis of assessed income u/s 143(3) without appreciating the fact\nthat the provisions of Section

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

234 is chargeable for delay in filing of income Tax return, however, the assessee has filed income tax return within due date of filing of ITR. Therefore no interest u/s 234A is chargeable to the assessee. 6.3 Interest u/s 234B is chargeable for default in payment of advance tax. On the basis of the submissions above, your honour will find

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

234 is chargeable for delay in filing of income Tax return, however, the assessee has filed income tax return within due date of filing of ITR. Therefore no interest u/s 234A is chargeable to the assessee. 6.3 Interest u/s 234B is chargeable for default in payment of advance tax. On the basis of the submissions above, your honour will find