INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

54,732/- for the assessment years 2007-08 and Rs.225,35,17,400/- for the assessment year 2008-09. 6. Aggrieved by these assessment orders, the assessee filed appeals before the ld. CIT(A)-1, Lucknow. With regard to the issue of assessment of the assessee on the status of an AJP on the basis of the assessment

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

Accordingly all four additional grounds filed by the revenue in Appeal numbers 532 & 533 of 2014, stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

54,732/- for the assessment years 2007-08 and Rs.225,35,17,400/- for the assessment year 2008-09. 6. Aggrieved by these assessment orders, the assessee filed appeals before the ld. CIT(A)-1, Lucknow. With regard to the issue of assessment of the assessee on the status of an AJP on the basis of the assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

54,732/- for the assessment years 2007-08 and Rs.225,35,17,400/- for the assessment year 2008-09. 6. Aggrieved by these assessment orders, the assessee filed appeals before the ld. CIT(A)-1, Lucknow. With regard to the issue of assessment of the assessee on the status of an AJP on the basis of the assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

54,732/- for the assessment years 2007-08 and Rs.225,35,17,400/- for the assessment year 2008-09. 6. Aggrieved by these assessment orders, the assessee filed appeals before the ld. CIT(A)-1, Lucknow. With regard to the issue of assessment of the assessee on the status of an AJP on the basis of the assessment

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

54,732/- for the assessment years 2007-08 and Rs.225,35,17,400/- for the assessment year 2008-09. 6. Aggrieved by these assessment orders, the assessee filed appeals before the ld. CIT(A)-1, Lucknow. With regard to the issue of assessment of the assessee on the status of an AJP on the basis of the assessment

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

2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts — the employer's liability is to be paid

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

54,35,000/- computed by the Assessing Officer under the\nprovisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)in respect of property at\nKhata No. 192-2 / Gata No. 447/2, Civil Lines, Gonda in\ncontravention of the facts that agreement for transfer of the\nproperty was undertaken during the F.Y. 2009-10 and\npayment was made through banking channel. The\nassessment

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

54,400/- which have not\nbeen examined by the AO with regard to genuineness of the expenses\nclaimed nor whether the same were allowable as per provisions of the Act.\nThe Assessing officer has passed the assessment order on 15.12.2019 u/s\n143 of the Act without enquiries on the above issues and accepted\nsubmissions of the assessee

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

2 to section 263 of the Act, as invoked by the Ld. PCIT, is neither relevant nor applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 08.01.2016 passed under section 263 of the Act and restore the original assessment order dated 29.03.2014. As a logical corollary, the consequential assessment order dated 14.09.2016 passed

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

54,35,000/- computed under section 56(2)(vii)(b) in\nrespect of property at Khata No. 192-2 / Gata No. 447/2, Civil Lines, Gonda in\ncontravention of the facts that agreement for transfer of the\nproperty was undertaken during the F.Y. 2009-10 and\nbased on FMV computed in A.Y., 2014-15 at Rs.43,46,000/- only on account

TINICH SAHKARI GANNA SAMITI LIMITED,BASTI vs. ITO, , BASTI

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

TDS was made u/s.194H of the Act. Less: 1/3 for expenses by estimate Rs.11,85,859/- Rs.23,71,717/- Interest income as per ITR Rs.2,86,061/- Total Taxable income (rounded off) Rs.26,57,780/- ITA No.295/LKW/2023 Page 7 of 28 3.1 The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, assessing the total income at Rs.26

TINICH SAHKARI GANNA SAMITI LIMITED,BASTII vs. ITO, BASTI

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

TDS was made u/s.194H of the Act. Less: 1/3 for expenses by estimate Rs.11,85,859/- Rs.23,71,717/- Interest income as per ITR Rs.2,86,061/- Total Taxable income (rounded off) Rs.26,57,780/- ITA No.295/LKW/2023 Page 7 of 28 3.1 The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, assessing the total income at Rs.26

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

2 to Section 263 of\nthe Act, as invoked by the Ld. PCIT, is neither relevant nor applicable to the\nfacts of the present case. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order\ndated 08.01.2016 passed under Section 263 of the Act and restore the\n14\noriginal assessment order dated 29.03.2014. As a logical corollary, the\nconsequential assessment order dated

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide I

54,56,067/-.”\n\n(A.1) The issues in dispute in these appeals/Cross Objection pertain to assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19. Although several grounds have been taken in these appeals/Cross Objection, the issues involved in them were summarized by the learned Counsel for the assessee in a tabular form for the convenience of the Bench

ACIT CIRCLE 3, LUCKNOW vs. RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 112 To 114/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2015-16 To 2017-18 Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Vs. Dcit Bank Ltd P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. 226001. Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan:Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) A.Y.2016-17 Acit Circle-3 Vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh Ltd Kar Bhawan, Lucknow Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan: Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Addl. Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Four Appeals Have Been Have Been Filed For The Assessment Years 2015 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18 By The Assessee & Revenue Ssessee & Revenue Against The Respective Orders Of The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024. While The Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, The Revenue 18, The Revenue

54,660/- was claimed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has reproduced a copy of the return filed by the assessee in his order and pointed out his inability to see that any exemption had been claimed on this account. The Ld. DR has conceded that no exemption has been claimed on this amount u/s 2

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S BHAGWAT SARAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BIJNOR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

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

TDS on payments made to K. Lounge Tailors and therefore, Assessing Officer had rightly made the disallowance which the learned CIT(A) has wrongly allowed. 3. Learned A. R., on the other hand, submitted that the extra amount received by the assessee from the students in the form of book bank fees, dress charges, examination fee and misc. fees were

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

2,40,442/- as estimated not to have been incurred for business purposes. On the payment of Rs 54,04,019/- only Rs.337,324/- has been deducted on commission paid to 34 persons. On the remaining payment to 58 persons TDS has not been made on the ground that the amount paid individually was less than

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

54,430/- is excluded, the partner's debit balances would further increase to Rs.6,07,95,982/-. Since as per the Deed, the partners become entitled to apportionment of profits as on the last day of accounting your and major receipts by way of dividend have come towards the close of the year, the debit balances arrived at by further