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

TDS can not held to be non disclosure of the full particulars. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the notice under Section 147 of the Act to the petitioner stands vitiated in non compliance or fulfilment of the second condition as laid down in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act.” Shri Anil Kumar

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

TDS can not held to be non disclosure of the full particulars. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the notice under Section 147 of the Act to the petitioner stands vitiated in non compliance or fulfilment of the second condition as laid down in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act.” Shri Anil Kumar

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

1)(c) read with section 13(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by not treating the appellant as Charitable Institution, even though the same has already been adjudged to be so by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in its judgement dated

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

1)(c) read with section 13(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by not treating the appellant as Charitable Institution, even though the same has already been adjudged to be so by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in its judgement dated

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

1)(c) read with section 13(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by not treating the appellant as Charitable Institution, even though the same has already been adjudged to be so by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in its judgement dated

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

1)(c) read with section 13(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by not treating the appellant as Charitable Institution, even though the same has already been adjudged to be so by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in its judgement dated

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

1)(c) read with section 13(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by not treating the appellant as Charitable Institution, even though the same has already been adjudged to be so by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in its judgement dated

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

43,985/- ii. Interest received on loans and others Rs. 20,13,599/- iii. Interest received on UPSEB loan Rs. 1,70,17,987/- iv. Interest received on advances Rs. 8,25,427/- v. Interest received on premium Rs. 8,13,36,341/- Total Rs.11,10,37,339/- 5. In the assessment year 1996-97, the ld. AO held

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is held to be partly allowed

43,985/-\nii. Interest received on loans and others Rs.20,13,599/-\niii. Interest received on UPSEB loan Rs.1,70,17,987/-\niv. Interest received on advances Rs.8,25,427/-\nv. Interest received on premium Rs.8,13,36,341/-\nTotal Rs.11,10,37,339/-\n5.\nIn the assessment year 1996-97, the ld. AO held the following to be\nchargeable

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

BINDU KUMAR,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-1(1), LUCKNOW-NEW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

section 143(3) of the Act. The grounds of appeal cum statement of facts are as under: - “1. The case has been selected for limited scrutiny under the reason cash deposit during the year, as this was the year of demonetization. For the purpose of limited scrutiny, the assessing has served the notice dated 04/12/2019, stating that

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the ground that the tax at source has not been deducted on material supplied by the contractors. The estimated disallowance @4.845% of amount of Rs. 1,43,49,20,141/- has been made. I find that the appellant purchases various items like sand, coarse sand, boulders, grits etc. in its business

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

43 days delay in instituting these five appeals, in the larger interest of justice and after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr.’ [2017 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Ors.’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)] we condoned the same and proceeded the case/s on merits. 3. Since the facts

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

43 days delay in instituting these five appeals, in the larger interest of justice and after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr.’ [2017 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Ors.’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)] we condoned the same and proceeded the case/s on merits. 3. Since the facts

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW., LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

43 days delay in instituting these five appeals, in the larger interest of justice and after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr.’ [2017 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Ors.’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)] we condoned the same and proceeded the case/s on merits. 3. Since the facts

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

43 days delay in instituting these five appeals, in the larger interest of justice and after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr.’ [2017 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Ors.’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)] we condoned the same and proceeded the case/s on merits. 3. Since the facts

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

43 days delay in instituting these five appeals, in the larger interest of justice and after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr.’ [2017 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Ors.’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)] we condoned the same and proceeded the case/s on merits. 3. Since the facts

BHAWANI DEVELOPERS,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW-NEW

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid\ndirections

43 of the act.\n3.3.8 Hon'ble ITAT, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN, in the case of \"M/s. Kunnel Engineers &\nContractors (P) Ltd.\" decided in I.T.A. No. 653/Coch/2019 & 04/Coch/2020 vide its judgement\ndated 19.05.2020, has decided the issue in favour of revenue and against the assessee. The\nonly difference in that, in that case the issue was of \"SERVICE-TAX\" while

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. UTTAR PRADESH POLICE AND ARMED FORCES SAHAYATA SANSTHAN, LUCKNOW

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer V. Uttar Pradesh Police & Armed (Exemption) Forces Sahayata Sansthan Lucknow Room No.6, Naveen Bhawan U.P. Sachivalaya, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaatr4272K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Respondent By: Shri B. P. Yadav, Advocate O R D E R

43,497/- were on account of interest received on maturity of Fixed Deposits and the same was shown as Capital Receipts in the Balance Sheet, whereas, receipts of Rs.4,63,566/- were interest on FDRs, Saving Bank Account and on TDS refund and they were duly shown in the Income and Expenditure Account. The Ld. A.R. submitted that