ROSHANI TRIPATHI,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT RANGE 1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

purchase as bogus ignoring the 27D issued by collector of TCS, a vital information available Assessing Officer. 5. The CIT(A) NFAC has erred in confirming the order of Assessing Officer ignoring the past history of the one of the supplier of the assessee i.e. ABLAXE INFO SOLUTIONS PVT LTD a company registered in New Delhi, against which investigation

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

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

purchase of labs & equipment & never\nclaimed in the books of accounts of the assessee as revenue expenditure.\nThe provision to deduct TDS for sale of property started from 1-6-\n2013.Since the amount has been paid for lab and related equipment in the\nprevious year & as such the facts quoted in the assessment order\nregarding non compliance of TDS

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 pertaining to interest on unutilized funds and as per provisions of sec. 198 & 199 of the I.T. Act, the above interest income is income of the assessee and not of the U.P. Govt. 7 The Ld.CIT(A), Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.4,30,49,278/- on account of excess deduction

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

purchase of shares for the purpose to earn dividend\nincome which is exempted under section 10(33) of the Act and thus,\nnot forming a part of the total income, and therefore the interest paid\nthereon had to be disallowed under Section 14A.\n6. It may be mentioned at this stage that the Assessee has made a\ndistinction between investments

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

In the result, appeals vide I

purchase of shares for the purpose to earn dividend\nincome which is exempted under section 10(33) of the Act and thus,\nnot forming a part of the total income, and therefore the interest paid\nthereon had to be disallowed under Section 14A.\n\n6. It may be mentioned at this stage that the Assessee has made a\ndistinction between

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

TDS on unsecured loan, Ledger copy of unsecured loan, Details of purchases made from 1.10.2016 to 8.11.2016, etc. which, acknowledged to have been received by the Assessing Officer as per View Response to Notice ID 100018031183 and ID 100020848195 appearing at pages 22 to 26 of the paper book. The Assessing Officer after verification of the details so furnished

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. MAA RAKTDANTIKA CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

bogus sales. This is not permissible by law. The Delhi high court in the case of JW Wires has held as under: 1. “In this reference made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, on a reference application filed by the assessee before it, the solitary question which is referred for our consideration, reads as follows: "Whether on the facts

M/S. MAA RAKLTDANTIKA CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT/ACIT, RANGE-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

bogus sales. This is not permissible by law. The Delhi high court in the case of JW Wires has held as under: 1. “In this reference made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, on a reference application filed by the assessee before it, the solitary question which is referred for our consideration, reads as follows: "Whether on the facts

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

purchases which has been accepted in earlier years, moreover, when no defect or discrepancy has been found in Sales against purchases/manufacturing in any year of assessment completed as the same has been accepted. ITA. No.139/LKW/2022 Page 8 of 158 15. The ld.AO has failed to conduct inquiry as per the procedure laid down in the Act but has made spot

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

purchases which has been accepted in earlier years, moreover, when no defect or discrepancy has been found in Sales against purchases/manufacturing in any year of assessment completed as the same has been accepted. ITA. No.139/LKW/2022 Page 8 of 158 15. The ld.AO has failed to conduct inquiry as per the procedure laid down in the Act but has made spot

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

bogus donations from Poddar Group of trusts to the tune of Rs.37500000 during the Page 28 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 relevant year. This information was received by the Assessing officer from Investigation wing Mumbai and on the basis of the same, reassessment proceedings were initiated in the hands of the assessee. Grounds

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

bogus donations from Poddar Group of trusts to the tune of Rs.37500000 during the Page 28 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 relevant year. This information was received by the Assessing officer from Investigation wing Mumbai and on the basis of the same, reassessment proceedings were initiated in the hands of the assessee. Grounds