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

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

87 framed under section\n143(3) cannot be revised on n that desired inquiry was not made.\nREVISION ORDER OF REVISION BY COMMISSIONER ON THE GROUND\nTHAT ITO HAD NOT MADE PROPER ENQUIRIES - FINDING BY TRIBUNAL\nTHAT ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED REQUISITE INFORMATION AND ITO\nHAD CONSIDERED FACTS AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER\nOF REVISION NOT VALID INCOME

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

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

TDS 2017 87 taxmann.com 315 (Delhi-Trib).\nThe facts of the above case are that Assessee Company is engaged in\nproviding telecommunication services. The company paid roaming charges\nto other telecom operators without deducting tax at source. It was the case\nof the appellant company that roaming payments made to other telecom\noperators for allowing use of their network were

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

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

DCIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. PROJECTS CORPORATION LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoor

TDS out of total taxes payable, which is also against the provision of section 198 and 199 of the Income Tax Act 3. The Ld. CIT(A). Lucknow had erred in law, and facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,98,05,040/- on account of bad debts, which was never included in the debtors which is against

DCIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. PROJECTS CORPORATION LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoor

TDS out of total taxes payable, which is also against the provision of section 198 and 199 of the Income Tax Act 3. The Ld. CIT(A). Lucknow had erred in law, and facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,98,05,040/- on account of bad debts, which was never included in the debtors which is against

DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. PROJECTS CORPORATION LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoor

TDS out of total taxes payable, which is also against the provision of section 198 and 199 of the Income Tax Act 3. The Ld. CIT(A). Lucknow had erred in law, and facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,98,05,040/- on account of bad debts, which was never included in the debtors which is against

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR vs. COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-5, Kanpur 84/105, Kailash Motors Building, G.T. Road, Afim Kothi, Kanpur-208003 Pan: Aaccc4267E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (A)- 2, Kanpur Dated 25.09.2017, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y. 2006-07 On 23.12.2008. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 5,32,366/- U/S 14A Without Taken Into Consideration That The Expenditure Incurred In Relation To Exempt Income. 02. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 99,56,258/-Without Appreciating That The Provisions Of Sec. 50C Have Been Invoked By The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Stamp Valuation Of The Property. The Assessee Has Not Claimed Before The Assessing Office To Make The Reference To The Valuation Officer U/S 55A Of It Act, 1961. 3 That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 3,20,90,164/- On Account Of Loss Claimed On Sale Of Shares Without Appreciating That The Transaction As Claimed Were Sham & Was Incorporated Only To Evade The Capital Gain Earned On The Sale Of Properties. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Ignoring The Facts Noted By The Assessing Officer Regarding The Transaction Of Sale Of Shares.

TDS Rs. 5,30,187/- ii. Out of bad debts claimed as unrecoverable Rs. 4,05,770/- iii. On account of cessation of liabilities under section 41(1) Rs. 2,82,364/- 2 Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2006-07 iv. Inadmissible depreciation on car Rs. 33,762/- v. Misc. expenses Rs. 1,75,498/- vi. Addition on account

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

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

TDS however, he added the\nsaid expenditure as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. This is\nnot a case which falls under Section 69C. Clearly, Section 69C refers to the\nsource of the expenditure and not to the expenditure itself. Consequently, it\nis held that the AO was clearly wrong in treating the said expenditure as\nunexplained expenditure under Section

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

87,444\n6.50\n11%\n7%\nErstwhile Scrutiny u/s\n143(3) dt. 23.04.2021\nby NeFAC and adhoc\naddition of Rs.\n25,00,000/- and 43B\ndisallowances of Rs.\n2,57,43,209/-, Ld.\nCIT(A) allowed the\nappeal against original\norder.\n23 \n2019-20\n68,80,79,147\n4,52,65,423\n6.58\n11%\n7%\n2020

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

87,949/-. Since the appellant has shown income from business at Rs. 10,07,00,526/-, thus, the difference in profit works out at Rs. 1,12,87,423/-. Thus, the addition to the tune of Rs. 1,27,86,690/- (Rs. 1,12,87,423 + Rs. 14,99,267/-) deserved to be confirmed. Therefore, the addition to the extent

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

87,949/-. Since the appellant has shown income from business at Rs. 10,07,00,526/-, thus, the difference in profit works out at Rs. 1,12,87,423/-. Thus, the addition to the tune of Rs. 1,27,86,690/- (Rs. 1,12,87,423 + Rs. 14,99,267/-) deserved to be confirmed. Therefore, the addition to the extent

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

87,949/-. Since the appellant has shown income from business at Rs. 10,07,00,526/-, thus, the difference in profit works out at Rs. 1,12,87,423/-. Thus, the addition to the tune of Rs. 1,27,86,690/- (Rs. 1,12,87,423 + Rs. 14,99,267/-) deserved to be confirmed. Therefore, the addition to the extent

M/S MODEL EXIM,KANPUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriam/S. Model Exim Pcit (Central) V. 624-C, Defence Colony, 7/81-B, Tilak Nagar, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010. Kanpur. Pan:Aadfm6163H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Smt Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 29 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 11 2024 O R D E R

TDS u/s 195 of the IT. Act. In his reply the assessee has stated the disallowance of the commission under section 9(1)(vii) as FTS is not applicable to the facts of the case as per reason given in the reply. In support of his claim he has relied upon the following case laws in his favour

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S 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