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

TDS @ 30% of expenses of Rs.\n3074000/- where profit is estimated.\n\n3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,000/- being disallowances of expenses\nwhile invoking provision of section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is\nestimated.\n\n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow

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

TDS provision under section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is\nestimated.\n\n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,000/- being disallowances of expenses\nunder section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is estimated.\n\n5. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow

FUTURE PHARMA PVT.LTD,KANPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, KANPUR

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

Section 40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In view of the facts\nmentioned above, it is clear that the assessment order passed by AO is\nerroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly,\nin exercise of the power u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961 I set aside the order\npassed

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

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

TDS on payment of Rs. 3074000 @ 30% i.e. 922200/- in violation of the provision of section 40a(ia) In relevant year Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 9,22,200/- on account of payment of such expenses on which tax was not deducted aggregating Rs. 30,74,000/- as reported by Auditor in TAR and on other side estimated

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

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

TDS on payment of Rs. 3074000 @ 30% i.e. 922200/- in violation of the provision of section 40a(ia) In relevant year Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 9,22,200/- on account of payment of such expenses on which tax was not deducted aggregating Rs. 30,74,000/- as reported by Auditor in TAR and on other side estimated

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

TDS on payment of Rs. 3074000 @ 30% i.e. 922200/- in violation of the provision of section 40a(ia) In relevant year Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 9,22,200/- on account of payment of such expenses on which tax was not deducted aggregating Rs. 30,74,000/- as reported by Auditor in TAR and on other side estimated

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

7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance made by AO on account of AO on account of interest on 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

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

40A(2) opens with a non- obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible in certain circumstances. Section 41 elaborates conditions which apply with respect to certain deductions which are otherwise allowed in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability etc. If we consider this scheme, Sections 40- 43B, are concerned with and Page

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

7 borrowed funds have not been used for business purposes, interest paid on borrowed funds used by partners deserves to be disallowed. The facts on this point are similar to the facts in the case of CIT vs. Saraya Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. reported in 193 ITR 575 wherein their lordship of High Court Allahabad held as under:- "that

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:-

7 That the Learned PCIT, Bareilly has erred in holding that it is a case of "lack of enquiry" and, further failing to appreciate that alleged inadequate enquiry in the manner suggested without any independent evidence and, without any further enquiries by him cannot be a basis for assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Grounds

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

7 – AY 2020-21\nDisallowances of Agriculture Income in tune of Rs.37,00,000/-\nThat in the relevant assessee and his family earned agricultural income in\ntune of Rs.52,00,000/-. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings\ndetail of agricultural income was submitted as under:-\n1. That as regard to gross agriculture income of Rs.52 Lacs earned by\nassessee

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

TDS of section 194C were not appreciated since such payments are below the threshold limit specified in section 194C and on a due consideration of this fact atone, no dis-allowance of 30% of Rs. 1,20,000/- could have been made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4.1 BECAUSE the "CIT(A)" has erred

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

TDS @ 30% of expenses of Rs. \n3074000/- where profit is estimated. \n\n3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while \nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,000/- being disallowances of expenses \nwhile invoking provision of section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is \nestimated. \n\n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA UP

TDS @ 30% of expenses of Rs.\n3074000/- where profit is estimated.\n3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,000/- being disallowances of expenses\non provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is estimated.\n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA UP

TDS @ 30% of expenses of Rs.\n3074000/- where profit is estimated.\n3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,000/- being disallowances of expenses\nwhile invoking provision of section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is\nestimated.\n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RANGE-, LUCKNOW., LUCKNOW vs. SH. SHARAD DEORA, LUCKNOW.

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

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on fact, in deleting addition of unsecured loan of Rs 32 lacs under section 68 of the Act by accepting Credit Worthiness of SAPPHIRESAMBHAV INFRAESTATES PVT LTD who had NIL income and turnover, NIL advance tax, NIL TDS during the year.” 2. Revenue has also raised revised grounds of appeal, which are reproduced