ARYAVART BANK,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank, Vs. Dcit-Range 1, (Successor To Erstwhile Allahabad U.P. Lucknow Gramin Bank), Head Office, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Nbcc Commercial Complex, Vardan Khand, Gomti Nagar Extension, Lucknow Pan: Aaaju0568R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. C. Naresh, Fca Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 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) Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer That Were Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 On 30.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Not Granting Opportunity To The Appellant Bank To Present The Case Through Video Conferencing As Specified Under Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2020 Provided U/S. 250(68) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"). The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Be Directed To Grant Personal Hearing Through Video Conferencing In The Interest Of Justice. Without Prejudice To The Above 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Proviso To Section 251(1)(A) & Setting Aside The Order To Ao Without Appreciating That The Order Was Not Passed U/S 144. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Din Was Issued In The Name Of Non-Existing Entity & Hence The Order Passed Is Invalid. Without Prejudice To The Above

TDS, interest u/s 244A, Interest u/s234A, 2348 and set off of brought forward losses. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances

UP GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

setting off the losses in subsequent years. ITA Nos.744 /LKW/2024 Page 3 of 7 Therefore, the society had not filed any appeal against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act. It was submitted that according to Section 270A(6) of the Act any estimated addition could not be subject matter of penalty u/s 270A

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.

set off against the income of the current year. He, therefore, directed the AO to verify whether the loss was a business loss and thereafter allow it to be carry forward to the subsequent year as per the provision of section 72. 7. On the issue of commission that had been incorporated as a project development expenditure under the head

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

set up by the\nassessee.\nIn support of above submission and contention of the Assessee,following\ncitation are relevant to mention-\nCIT Vs. Hero Cycles Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 518(P&H)- It is held that if\nthere is no nexus between the expenditure incurred and the income\ngenerated and merely because the assessee had incurred interest\nexpenditure

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

In the result, appeals vide I

set up by the\nassessee.\n\nIn support of above submission and contention of the Assessee,following\ncitation are relevant to mention-\n\nCIT Vs. Hero Cycles Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 518(P&H)- It is held that if\nthere is no nexus between the expenditure incurred and the income\ngenerated and merely because the assessee had incurred interest

BINDU KUMAR,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-1(1), LUCKNOW-NEW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

TDS refunds received during the previous year. (ii) Annexure-II, being copy of statement of OD A/c No. 2170257000255 for the period from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2018 held by the assessee in Canara Bank in the name of M/s Gurudin Bindu Kumar Enterprises, the proprietorship concern of the assessee. (iii) Annexure-III, being copy of ledger a/c of Akhilesh Kumar (nephew

U.P CIVIL SECRETARIAT PRIMARY COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

set off of carry forward of losses claimed by the assessee. 5.1 Because the learned 1st appellate authority ought not to have disallowed Rs.7,47,412/- in respect of Bank contribution on PF contribution. 5.2 Because the learned 1st appellate authority erred in ignoring the fact that no query was raised during the assessment proceeding by A.O. and also

U.P CIVIL SECRETARIAT PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE BANK,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

set off of carry forward of losses claimed by the assessee. 5.1 Because the learned 1st appellate authority ought not to have disallowed Rs.7,47,412/- in respect of Bank contribution on PF contribution. 5.2 Because the learned 1st appellate authority erred in ignoring the fact that no query was raised during the assessment proceeding by A.O. and also

U.P CIVIL SECRETARIAT PRIMARY COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

set off of carry forward of losses claimed by the assessee. 5.1 Because the learned 1st appellate authority ought not to have disallowed Rs.7,47,412/- in respect of Bank contribution on PF contribution. 5.2 Because the learned 1st appellate authority erred in ignoring the fact that no query was raised during the assessment proceeding by A.O. and also

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

set aside the assessment order dated 31/03/2013 and directed the AO to frame afresh order de nova. This impugned action of Ld. PCIT has been challenged before us by the assessee. 10. Assailing the action of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee submitted a detailed reply in respect of all the above allegation which are reproduced in brief as under:- “That

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

set-aside being bad in law. 4. The ITO (TDS), Bareilly passed the orders under section 206C of the I.T. Act, due to default on the part of the assessee in collecting the tax at source (TCS) in respect of Royalty amount received for these six years. The assessee challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer by filing appeals before

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

set-aside being bad in law. 4. The ITO (TDS), Bareilly passed the orders under section 206C of the I.T. Act, due to default on the part of the assessee in collecting the tax at source (TCS) in respect of Royalty amount received for these six years. The assessee challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer by filing appeals before

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

set-aside being bad in law. 4. The ITO (TDS), Bareilly passed the orders under section 206C of the I.T. Act, due to default on the part of the assessee in collecting the tax at source (TCS) in respect of Royalty amount received for these six years. The assessee challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer by filing appeals before

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

set-aside being bad in law. 4. The ITO (TDS), Bareilly passed the orders under section 206C of the I.T. Act, due to default on the part of the assessee in collecting the tax at source (TCS) in respect of Royalty amount received for these six years. The assessee challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer by filing appeals before

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

set-aside being bad in law. 4. The ITO (TDS), Bareilly passed the orders under section 206C of the I.T. Act, due to default on the part of the assessee in collecting the tax at source (TCS) in respect of Royalty amount received for these six years. The assessee challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer by filing appeals before

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

set-aside being bad in law. 4. The ITO (TDS), Bareilly passed the orders under section 206C of the I.T. Act, due to default on the part of the assessee in collecting the tax at source (TCS) in respect of Royalty amount received for these six years. The assessee challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer by filing appeals before

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

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

Loss Account assessee\ncompany had debited the sum of Rs. 70,06,972/- towards commission\nand Rs. 23,04,000/- towards directors remuneration. The assessee was\nliable to deduct TDS u/s 194H and 194J of IT Act, 1961 but the same was\nnot done. The copy of 3CD is also not placed in file. Hence, 30% of the\nabove said

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

loss has been caused to the Revenue by the action of the appellant assessee. There may have been procedural lapse on the part of the assessee however, such procedural lapse did cause no prejudice to the Revenue. 6. In challenging the action of levy a reference was made to the relevant provisions of the Act. U/c XVII