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

48,253 ITAT-Lucknow Page 2 of 8 Finance & Accounts Officer DIOS, Lucknow Vs JtCIT ITA No.102 to 106/LKW/2023 4.2 Aggrieved assessee carried the matter in separate appeals before first appellate authority unsuccessfully. Therefore, the assessee came before us in present appeals on as many as 8-9 common grounds which in our considered view not in consonance with rule

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

48,253 ITAT-Lucknow Page 2 of 8 Finance & Accounts Officer DIOS, Lucknow Vs JtCIT ITA No.102 to 106/LKW/2023 4.2 Aggrieved assessee carried the matter in separate appeals before first appellate authority unsuccessfully. Therefore, the assessee came before us in present appeals on as many as 8-9 common grounds which in our considered view not in consonance with rule

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

48,253 ITAT-Lucknow Page 2 of 8 Finance & Accounts Officer DIOS, Lucknow Vs JtCIT ITA No.102 to 106/LKW/2023 4.2 Aggrieved assessee carried the matter in separate appeals before first appellate authority unsuccessfully. Therefore, the assessee came before us in present appeals on as many as 8-9 common grounds which in our considered view not in consonance with rule

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)

TDS refund received 4,48,050.00 Add: Salary Cheque returned 7,818.00 Add: Credit against OD limit received 8,99,000.00 Add: Cash Deposited in bank 3,92,500.00 Add: UL received back 3,14,850.00 Total Credits in Bank 3,35,18,800.23 2 Bindu Kumar A.Y. 2017-18 Without considering the above facts and records the assessment

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

TDS provision under section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is\nestimated.\n\n9. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition of Rs.12,01,000/- computed addition of Rs.61,31,000/- \nagainst actual consideration of Rs.31,45,000/-.\n\n10. Whether on facts and circumstances

M/S JIL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2021-22 M/S Jil Information Technology Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Limited, 54, Ja Annexe, Basant Lok, Income Tax, Range-3, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 Lucknow Pan: Aaacj8827B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Addl/Jcit(A), Panaji, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 19.03.2025, Wherein The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Under Section 143(1) Passed For The A.Y. 2021-22 By The Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru On 13.11.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ld. Cit(A)"] Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Disposing The Appeal Of The Appellant By Passing An Ex-Parte Order Which Is In Gross Violation Of Natural Justice & Fair Play As The Assessee Was Not Provided Reasonable Opportunity To Have Its Say On The Merit Of The Additions Made By The Ld. Ao. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Appreciating That The Addition Of Rs.78,17,622/-And Also The Addition Of Rs.74,913/-Do Not Fall Under The Purview Of The Clauses Enshrined In Section 143(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 & Also Failed To Appreciate That The Additions Made In The Present Case Are In The Nature Of Debate

48,59,832/- whereas credit of TDS allowed by the Ld. A.O. was Rs.1,47,68,402/-. 7. Appellant reserves its right to advance such other grounds before or at the time of hearing, which it may consider fit and appropriate, for which it craves leave to alter, amend or otherwise modify the grounds appearing hereinbefore with kind permission

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

TDS and grant the benefit to the assessee as per law.\nOn the issue of charging of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C, holding that\nthe charging of interest was mandatory, he rejected the plea of the assessee but\ndirected the ld. AO to allow the consequential relief that would arise as a result of\nthe decisions made

SHRI RAMESH SINGH RANA,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.576/Lkw/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Ramesh Singh Rana V. Dcit Range-4 3-B, Talkatora Road, Rajaji 5-Ashok Marg, Aaykar Puram, Lucknow-226017. Bhawan, Lucknow- 226001. Pan:Aggpr0749B अपीलाथ"/(Appellant) ""यथ"/(Respondent) अपीलाथ" "क और से/Appellant By: None ""यथ" "क और से /Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई "क तार"ख / Date Of Hearing: 08 04 2025 घोषणा "क तार"ख/ Date Of 17 04 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R Per Anadee Nath Misshra, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Lucknow Dated 11.06.2019, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

48,414/- (1.5% of Rs.109894290). Net Profit from contract work was estimated @ 5 % ie. Rs.66,59,426/- (5% of Page 7 of 10 Rs.13,31,88,534/-). Thus, total business income of appellant was estimated at Rs.83,07,840/- as against Rs.51,55,818/- shown by the appellant. Accordingly, an addition of Rs.31,52,022/- was made to total income

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

48. One of the rules of interpretation of a tax statute is that if a deduction or exemption is available on compliance with certain conditions, the conditions are to be strictly complied with." This rule is in line with the general principle that taxing statutes are to be construed strictly, and that there is no room for equitable considerations

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

TDS and grant the benefit to the assessee as per law.\nOn the issue of charging of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C, holding that\nthe charging of interest was mandatory, he rejected the plea of the assessee but\ndirected the ld. AO to allow the consequential relief that would arise as a result of\nthe decisions made

PROVL. DIV. PWD HAMIRPUR.,HAMIRPUR vs. THE ADDL. CIT-TDS, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

48,933/- was created and penalty proceedings u/s 271C were initiated. The assessee moved an application u/s 154 of the Act for rectification of demand created on the ground that the demand raised is mostly on late filing of TDS return and short deduction of TDS and may be waived. The Dy. CIT (TDS) passed an order dated 20/11/2019

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. MAA RAKTDANTIKA CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 115BBE will not be applicable.” As regards the addition of Rs. 2,48,16,616/- made on account of charging of the excess rate over and above the prevailing market rate the said amount too, forms part of the total sales declared by the assessee, there should be no reason for the department to frown at. There arises

M/S. MAA RAKLTDANTIKA CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT/ACIT, RANGE-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 115BBE will not be applicable.” As regards the addition of Rs. 2,48,16,616/- made on account of charging of the excess rate over and above the prevailing market rate the said amount too, forms part of the total sales declared by the assessee, there should be no reason for the department to frown at. There arises

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

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

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

48,173\n11%\n9.68%\nAddition on extra profit\ndeleted.\nThat during the course of search proceeding in statement recorded u/s \n132(4), dated 05/06.02.2022 assessee admitted following –\nThat percentage of net profit shown of M/s Alok Construction is \napproximately 6% of its turnover. However, usual profit shown by other \nbusiness entities of similar business is approximately 8%. (Q/Ans-17)\nThat

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

TDS and grant the benefit to the assessee as per law.\nOn the issue of charging of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C, holding that\nthe charging of interest was mandatory, he rejected the plea of the assessee but\ndirected the ld. AO to allow the consequential relief that would arise as a result of\nthe decisions made