MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

69 of the Income-tax Act. The burden of proof can seldom be discharged to the hilt by the assessee; if the Assessing Officer harbors’ doubts of the legitimacy of any subscription he is empowered, nay duty bound, to carry out thorough investigations. But if the Assessing Officer fails to unearth any wrong or illegal dealings, he cannot obdurately adhere

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

69 to 69D at a flat rate of tax and do not allow any deduction in respect of expenditure or allowance under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it is important for application of section 115BBE that the assessee should first fall in any of these sections. In our opinion, in the present case, the addition u/s 69A could have

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

69 to 69D at a flat rate of tax and do not allow any deduction in respect of expenditure or allowance under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it is important for application of section 115BBE that the assessee should first fall in any of these sections. In our opinion, in the present case, the addition u/s 69A could have

MRS. RANJANA,MRIZAPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs Ranjana V. The Assessing Officer Village Dewapur Pachwal Nafc Post Rajapur, Aamghat Mirzapur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aoxpr7130M (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Narendra Kumar Sahu, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property Valued At Rs.60,00,000/- . The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice To The Assessee Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, The Assessee Neither Responded To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Nor Filed Any Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer (Ao)

69 of the Act. The AO completed the assessment under section 147 of the Act read with sections 144 and 144B Of the Act. 2.3 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act, separately. 2.4 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC

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 again. 4- The Ld. CIT (A) upheld the ad-hoc disallowance restricting it to Rs. 8,32,144/- being 15% instead of 20% computed by Ld. A. O. on the expenses w. r. t. Sales Promotion for Rs. 13,61,930/-, Vehicle Running and Maintenance Rs. 10,76,395/-, Printing and Stationary Expenses Rs. 15,28,354/-, Telephone Expenses

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

69€, dated 25-1-1996.\nBrij Bhushan Agarwal v. CIT (Agra) 2 SOT 811 (2005)\nOf Section 263, read with section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nRevision orders prejudicial to interest of revenue -Assessment year 2000-\n01 Whether assessment order which has been subject-matter of\nproceeding under section 263 may be a cryptic one but that itself

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

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

TDS\nprovisions.\n27\n2021-22\n4.1 / 2\n4.1 follows: The Auditor, in his audit\nreport dated 08.03.2022, in Form No. 3CB\nhas commented as\na. It is not possible to ascertain GP ratio\nin such type of business.\nb. As explained to us, entity has not\nmaintained quantity wise reconciliation of\nstock.\nc. Sundry debtor, creditors and loans &\nadvances

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

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

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

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid\ndirections

69,463/- for the assessment\nyear 2012-13 and Rs.2,42,72,852/- for the assessment year 2014-15 as service\ntax and not remitted the same to the Government exchequer, before the due date\nof filing of the return of income. As such, the issue whether the provisions of\nsection 43B of the I. T. Act applies to service

JIL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

69-72 of the paper book.\n(ii)During the year under consideration, appellant has debited its profit & loss account by Rs.64,88,451/- on account of payments being made to these foreign agents. Total income earned for the year under consideration from the export of the software has been at Rs.9,73,599/-. Payments to these agents were made

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

69 of the Act, where such difference was below 10% of FMV\nestimated by DVO.\n\n2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,22,200/- being disallowances of expenses on\nnon adherence of TDS provision under head TDS @ 30% of expenses of Rs.\n3074000/- where profit is estimated

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

69 of the Act, where such difference was below 10% of FMV estimated by DVO.\n2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,22,200/- being disallowances of expenses\non non adherence of TDS provision under head TDS @ 30% of expenses of Rs.\n3074000/- where profit is estimated

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

69 of the Act, where such difference was below 10% of FMV estimated by DVO. \n2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while \nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,22,200/- being disallowances of expenses \non non adherence of TDS provision under head TDS @ 30% of expenses of Rs. \n3074000/- where profit is estimated

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

69 of the Act, where such difference was below 10% of FMV\nestimated by DVO.\n2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,22,200/- being disallowances of expenses\non non adherence of TDS provision under head TDS @ 30% of expenses of Rs.\n3074000/- where profit is estimated