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

80G(5)(vi) was also sent simultaneously. Both the orders were effective from 01.04.2014. However, Hon’ble ITAT restored the Page 26 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 registration and the assessment for AY 2015-16 was completed under section 143(3) at NIL income. Hence on the basis of above facts and circumstances

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

80G(5)(vi) was also sent simultaneously. Both the orders were effective from 01.04.2014. However, Hon’ble ITAT restored the Page 26 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 registration and the assessment for AY 2015-16 was completed under section 143(3) at NIL income. Hence on the basis of above facts and circumstances

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

TDS @ 30% of expenses of Rs. 3074000/- where profit is estimated. 3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while sustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,000/- being disallowances of expenses on provision of section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is estimated. 4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred