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)

91,92,351/- (Rs.4,07,72,868/- + Rs.46,84,19,842/-) of WIP acquired by the assessee during Assessment Year 2011-12, ITA No.24 to 39/LKW/2019 Page 10 of 46 under section 69C of the Act, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). This forms the issue in Ground No. 4. 14. The ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing

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

91,850/-. The assessment was completed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-VI, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer or simply the AO) on income of Rs, 38,78,73,237/- vide order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Aggrieved with this assessment framed

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

91,850/-.\nThe assessment was completed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,\nRange-VI, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer or simply\nthe AO) on income of Rs, 38,78,73,237/- vide order under Section 143(3) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Aggrieved with this\nassessment framed

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.

91,607/- and made additions of Rs. 1,32,78,833/- under section 68, which was contrary to the provisions of law. The ld. CIT(A) in response to this ground asked the assessee to provide the details of working of inventories shown in the balance-sheet but on account of the failure of the assessee to produce

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

91,405 (as per insight portal) Rs.1520645-00 [as\nper Income tax return]) as Interest Income from Allahabad Bank solely on the basis\nof incorrect amount shown as information as per insight portal inspite of the fact as\nper 26AS, assessee has received Interest of Rs.15,20,645/-and TDS of Rs.1,52,067/-\nhas been deducted. Thus without confronting

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

TDS of Rs.21,549/- as not pressed. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance made by AO on account of Preoperative expense of Rs.95,632/-. 9. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance made by AO on account of travelling expenses of Rs.2,91,960/-. 10. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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

section 149 of the Act. The assessment based on illegal proceedings initiated u/s 148 is liable to be quashed. 4. Because the assessment order passed by AO, after prior approval of Range Head dated 21.03.2024 (AY 2019-20 – 22.03.2024) is not accordance with law and peculiar facts of the case and ratio laid down by Hon’ble Courts. LdCIT

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

section 149 of the Act. The assessment based on illegal proceedings initiated u/s 148 is liable to be quashed. 4. Because the assessment order passed by AO, after prior approval of Range Head dated 21.03.2024 (AY 2019-20 – 22.03.2024) is not accordance with law and peculiar facts of the case and ratio laid down by Hon’ble Courts. LdCIT

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

section 149 of the Act. The assessment based on illegal proceedings initiated u/s 148 is liable to be quashed. 4. Because the assessment order passed by AO, after prior approval of Range Head dated 21.03.2024 (AY 2019-20 – 22.03.2024) is not accordance with law and peculiar facts of the case and ratio laid down by Hon’ble Courts. LdCIT

SHRI RAMESH SINGH RANA,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.576/Lkw/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Ramesh Singh Rana V. Dcit Range-4 3-B, Talkatora Road, Rajaji 5-Ashok Marg, Aaykar Puram, Lucknow-226017. Bhawan, Lucknow- 226001. Pan:Aggpr0749B अपीलाथ"/(Appellant) ""यथ"/(Respondent) अपीलाथ" "क और से/Appellant By: None ""यथ" "क और से /Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई "क तार"ख / Date Of Hearing: 08 04 2025 घोषणा "क तार"ख/ Date Of 17 04 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R Per Anadee Nath Misshra, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Lucknow Dated 11.06.2019, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

91 Ground of appeal no. 1 - Addition of Rs.31,52,002 -: a. The AO issued notices u/s 133(6) to 7 sundry creditors whose addresses were provided by the appellant. However no reply was received. Thus, the AO concluded that purchases and expenses are unverified. b. The AO noted that there is difference of TDS of Rs.1

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

A P S ACADEMY,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-IV(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoorassessment Year 2008-09 M/S A.P.S. Academy, The Income Tax Officer, 239, Leela Building, Vs. Ward –Iv(I), Senani Vihar, Lucknow Raibareilly Road, Lucknow Pan – Aaata 7665H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154 of the Act. In the present case, we find that the issue in the original proceedings and in the proceedings u/s. 154 are different therefore the ground of appeal taken by the assessee as additional ground of appeal is rejected and the ld. AR was asked to proceed with his regular grounds of appeal

EVROY INFRAVENTURES PVT. LTD. ,KANPUR vs. ACIT-CC-2, KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2019-20 Evroy Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. V. Acit C-48, Kalyanpur Central Circle 2 Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aadce4237F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Akshay Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2024, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Kanpur – 4 (Ld. Cit(A)) For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) Was Carried Out On 17.01.2019 In Dr. M.C. Sharma, S.P.M. Hospital & Trauma Centre Group Of Cases & Also In The Case Of The Assessee’S Firm. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Infrastructure Development & Other Related Work. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 27.05.2020, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.71,940/-. During The Course Of Search & Seizure Operation

91,875/-. The assessee was asked to explain the difference of receipts amounting to Rs.17,76,441/-. The submission of the assessee before the AO was that one Shri Dharmendra Kumar Gupta had deducted TDS on provisional basis of Rs.68,800/- @2% on 34,40,000/-, that however, the services of Shri Dharmendra Kumar Gupta in financial year

PRADEEP KUMAR,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Pradeep Kumar V. The Acit-1 A-1/46, Vikas Khand Lucknow Gomti Nagar Lucknow Pan:Ablpk8392B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Prakash Agrawal, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04 09 2024 O R D E R

91,920/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. During the year under consideration, the assessee declared income from business at Rs.1,20,82,365/-, income from house property at Rs.2,52,000/-, income from other sources (being interest) at Rs.17,20,261/- and long term capital gain at Rs.5,90,244/-. On the total turnover of Rs.31

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. UTTAR PRADESH POLICE AND ARMED FORCES SAHAYATA SANSTHAN, LUCKNOW

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer V. Uttar Pradesh Police & Armed (Exemption) Forces Sahayata Sansthan Lucknow Room No.6, Naveen Bhawan U.P. Sachivalaya, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaatr4272K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Respondent By: Shri B. P. Yadav, Advocate O R D E R

91,873/- was also adjusted in assessment year 2012-13 out of the amount of Rs.1,97,00,000/- and, thereafter, the assessee had carried forward balance accumulated or set apart to the tune of Rs.44,62,505/-, whereas, in the captioned assessment year, i.e., assessment year 2013-14, no adjustment of Rs.99,45,622/- had been made

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. 13. 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 fee of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- b.Flood Controland Development expenses

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. 13. 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 fee of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- b.Flood Controland Development expenses

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. 13. 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 fee of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- b.Flood Controland Development expenses

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. 13. 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 fee of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- b.Flood Controland Development expenses