M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

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

section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax ,1961 .The A.O. while passing the order u/s 143(3) of foe Act in this case has not examined the above facts , Accordingly the assessment order on this point is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. ITA No.701 & 702/LKW/2017 Page 7 of 17 In addition to the above

M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

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

section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax ,1961 .The A.O. while passing the order u/s 143(3) of foe Act in this case has not examined the above facts , Accordingly the assessment order on this point is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. ITA No.701 & 702/LKW/2017 Page 7 of 17 In addition to the above

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(4), RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Bareilly V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2472C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Amritsar V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs4654E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Kanpur(I) V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2468Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Guwahati V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2462E (Appellant) (Respondent)

42,86,466/-, under section 69C of the Act, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). This forms the basis of Ground no.3 before us. 13. At the time of formation of the Partnership, i.e., in Assessment Year 2011-12, WIP of Rs.4,07,72,868/- was contributed by SPCL to the assessee firm. This was disputed

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

42. The rationale for introduction of Section 43B was explained by this court in M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi: Page 11 of 26 "19. The object of Section 43B, as originally enacted, is to allow certain deductions only on actual payment. This is made clear by the non-obstante Clause contained in the beginning

SRI SURESH KHATRI,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(4), KANPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-14

42,437/- made by the AO under the head Shipping Expenses on account of non deduction of TDS, which addition is contrary to facts, bad in law be deleted. 2. Because the CIT(A) has not considered the provisions of section

THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JOINT ORGANISATION ,LUCKNOW vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

Appeals stand allowed accordingly

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.125 To 127/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 The Addl. District Magistrate, (Land Acquisition) Joint Organisation, Room No-42, Lucknow, Up-226001 Tan: Lkna07354E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

section 194LA of the Act. In view of the aforestated failure, the Ld. AO held the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ for non/short deduction of tax u/s 201(1) of the Act and consequently determined the liability for non/short deduction of TDS and interest chargeable thereon u/s 201(1A) of the Act as under; Short/Non Total Demand Interest

THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JOINT ORGANISATION ,LUCKNOW vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

Appeals stand allowed accordingly

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.125 To 127/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 The Addl. District Magistrate, (Land Acquisition) Joint Organisation, Room No-42, Lucknow, Up-226001 Tan: Lkna07354E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

section 194LA of the Act. In view of the aforestated failure, the Ld. AO held the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ for non/short deduction of tax u/s 201(1) of the Act and consequently determined the liability for non/short deduction of TDS and interest chargeable thereon u/s 201(1A) of the Act as under; Short/Non Total Demand Interest

THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JOINT ORGANISATION ,LUCKNOW vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

Appeals stand allowed accordingly

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.125 To 127/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 The Addl. District Magistrate, (Land Acquisition) Joint Organisation, Room No-42, Lucknow, Up-226001 Tan: Lkna07354E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

section 194LA of the Act. In view of the aforestated failure, the Ld. AO held the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ for non/short deduction of tax u/s 201(1) of the Act and consequently determined the liability for non/short deduction of TDS and interest chargeable thereon u/s 201(1A) of the Act as under; Short/Non Total Demand Interest

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

42,049/- on account of interest on unutilized fund without appreciating the fact that the assessee is claiming TDS relating to FDRs of un- utilized fund and is not showing the interest in its income which is against the provisions of section

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.

TDS deduction is made in A. Y. 2014-15. Thus, total disallowance of Rs. 6084714/-should not be made as all the details were available before the LD AO. (1) SUBMISSION ON THE ISSUE OF REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 4 BEING ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES Rs. 8,32,144/-. It is prayed that the Ld. A. O. disallowed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

TDS has been made by the assessee. Then, as settled in ‘M/s Teja Construction vs. ACIT’ (supra), all the expenditure, which represents direct costs and, hence, is adjustable against the revenue for the purpose of determining profit under section 28(i) of the Act, does not come within the provisions of section

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

TDS has been made by the assessee. Then, as settled in ‘M/s Teja Construction vs. ACIT’ (supra), all the expenditure, which represents direct costs and, hence, is adjustable against the revenue for the purpose of determining profit under section 28(i) of the Act, does not come within the provisions of section

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. 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. 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

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

42,952/is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue for the following facts and reasons: Applicability of section 195 of the IT Act, 1961 on Commission paid to foreign agents (sales commission) The assessee firm has paid a sum of Rs. 83,89,773/- to the overseas entities and debited in profit & loss account under head ‘Sales promotion’ without

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