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.

77,613/- were treated as unexplained cash and added back under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The ld. AO also observed from the balance-sheet, that the assessee had shown advances from customers against plots and flat booking at Rs. 8,56,22,259/- and asked the assessee to give the complete postal addresses of parties from whom

AJAY SINGH BHADORIA,KANPUR vs. ITO(1)(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section. 5. That the learned authorities failed to appreciate that reimbursements for employee wages, PF and ESI were revenue neutral transactions with no profit element, and inclusion thereof as turnover was unjustified. 6. That the authorities below ignored the reconciliation between Service Tax turnover and Income Tax turnover, which arose due to the Service Tax Valuation Rules, 2005, and CBDT

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

TDS on purchase of goods for which payment is made to suppliers. In any case the provisions of section 40(a) (ia) of the Act do not provide for estimated disallowance of the nature made by the AO. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 6,95,21,880/- made by the AO is deleted giving relief to the appellant

AMAR DIWAKAR,KANPUR NAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Amar Diwakar V. Dcit J0512, Avas Vikas Circle 4 Keshavpuram, Kalyanpur Kanpur Kanpur Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aiypd7324G (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Pradeep Seth, 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 20.12.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per Information Gathered By The Department From Network Management System (Nms) Portal, The Assessee Had Earned Salary Income Of Rs.17,50,162/- From Fiit Jee Ltd & Had Made Cash Deposit Of Rs.11,50,000/- In His Saving Bank Account During The Year Under Consideration. The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Initiated Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act To The Assessee. In Response To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act

section 148 of the Act, ITA No.117/LKW/2025 Page 2 of 7 the assessee neither filed return of income nor filed any written submission. Thereafter, the AO issued statutory notices to the assessee, requiring the assessee to furnish the details of salary received by him and the cash deposits made in his bank account. The submission of the assessee, vide reply

ACIT(E), LUCKNOW vs. M/S. BHAGWANT INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, BIJNOR

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

section 11 thereby deleting the addition of\nRs.2,66,94,072/- in the form of admission & smart card fees, Exam fee,\nFee Receipts, Projects fees, Uniform fees, internet fees and Book Bank\nReceipts from the students beyond the prescribed amount of fees as\ndecided by the Govt. Authorities, which clearly indicates that the objects of\nthe assessee are not charitable

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)

TDS certificates in respect of payments made to customers and confirmatory statements of Sahara City Homes-Bareilly and SPCL Lucknow were examined. An amount of Rs.42,15,716/- by way of customer advances was acquired by the assessee firm from SPCL Lucknow pursuant to the deed of incorporation of the partnership firm. The same appears as Advance from customers under

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 provisions. d. We have not been provided with the stock records by the assessee. Item wise Quantitative details of stock could not be furnished due to nature of business and large number of items. So, we are unable to give the item wise quantitative details of stock in Para no. 35(b) of Form 3D. e. Valuation of closing

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 provisions. d. We have not been provided with the stock records by the assessee. Item wise Quantitative details of stock could not be furnished due to nature of business and large number of items. So, we are unable to give the item wise quantitative details of stock in Para no. 35(b) of Form 3D. e. Valuation of closing

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 provisions. d. We have not been provided with the stock records by the assessee. Item wise Quantitative details of stock could not be furnished due to nature of business and large number of items. So, we are unable to give the item wise quantitative details of stock in Para no. 35(b) of Form 3D. e. Valuation of closing

THE DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

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

TDS) u/s 206C\n(6A) of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since the demand\nraised is based on wrong calculation made by the Assessing Authority and the\nsame is unsustainable in law.\n6. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)\nis not justified in refusing to adjudicate

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

M/S ALLIANCE BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Alliance Builders & Asst.Commissioner Of V. Contractors Ltd Income Tax, Central Circle-2 C/O 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Allen Ganj, Kanpur. Pan:Aaeca8217A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 11 2024 O R D E R

77,700/-. However, taxes were paid on an income of Rs.1,45,75,195/- u/s 115JB as deemed income suggesting that on the income determined u/s 115JB of the Act was found to higher than the tax worked out on the income determined under the normal provisions of the Act. 4. Vide Para (2) of the notice under 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. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 5 12. 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

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. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 5 12. 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

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. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 5 12. 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

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. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 5 12. 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

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. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 5 12. 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

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

In the result, appeals vide I

section 14A read with Rule 8D was made\nsolely on the basis of investment by Assessee Company in SPVs without\nverifying objects of investment and understanding of relevant provision of law.\nIt is also submitted that section 14A carries heading 'Expenditure\nincurred in relation to income not includible in total income'\n\nAs per Section 14A:- 'For the purpose