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

natural justice.” I.T.A. No.123/Lkw/2016 Because the learned 1st appellate authority erred in holding that “1.1 adequate opportunity was given by the assessing officer to the appellant for passing the order u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961. 1.2 Because the learned assessing officer ought to have held that the assessing officer did not allow adequate opportunity to the assessee

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

natural justice.” I.T.A. No.123/Lkw/2016 Because the learned 1st appellate authority erred in holding that “1.1 adequate opportunity was given by the assessing officer to the appellant for passing the order u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961. 1.2 Because the learned assessing officer ought to have held that the assessing officer did not allow adequate opportunity to the assessee

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

natural justice.” I.T.A. No.123/Lkw/2016 Because the learned 1st appellate authority erred in holding that “1.1 adequate opportunity was given by the assessing officer to the appellant for passing the order u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961. 1.2 Because the learned assessing officer ought to have held that the assessing officer did not allow adequate opportunity to the assessee

SRI SAINATH ASSOCIATES,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Natural Justice, without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and therefore deserves to be declared a nullity. It is therefore prayed that the ad hoc disallowance

MAHESH MITTAL,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-5, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshramahesh Mittal V. Acit, Range-5 1/16, Vinay Khand Gomti Income Tax Office Ashok Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Acqpm4459B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Akshay Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

natural justice. Page 2 of 31 4. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in Confirming the order of the A.O. by failing to appreciate that the shares of M/s ACCL Were sold by the Appellant between 30-10- 2013 and 03-02-2014 whereas the report of the Investigation Wing

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(FORMERLY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),AYODHYA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

justice and judicial discipline. In view of various authoritative judicial pronouncements brought to the notice of Ld. CIT(A), analysis of nature of activities, for holding that the appellant is involved in the activities of profit making, is wholly incorrect in the eyes of law. 3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in disallowing

MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURE DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,KANPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

natural justice. 13. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 14. The appellant craves leave to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before or at the time of hearing of appeal. 5.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted before us that the CPC, Bangalore has erred

MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,KANPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

natural justice. 13. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 14. The appellant craves leave to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before or at the time of hearing of appeal. 5.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted before us that the CPC, Bangalore has erred

MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,KANPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

natural justice. 13. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 14. The appellant craves leave to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before or at the time of hearing of appeal. 5.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted before us that the CPC, Bangalore has erred

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

natural justice and without jurisdiction. 3. That as per ‘agreement to sell’ dated 31-03-2012, Sri Dwijendra Ram Tripathi, Sri Surendra Ram Tripathi, Sri Shailendra Ram Tripathi and Sri Rakesh Ram Tripathi (Known as Second Party to the ‘agreement to sell’) are liable to pay entire tax and other demand aroused in respect of compensation paid against the land

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

natural justice and without jurisdiction. 3. That as per ‘agreement to sell’ dated 31-03-2012, Sri Dwijendra Ram Tripathi, Sri Surendra Ram Tripathi, Sri Shailendra Ram Tripathi and Sri Rakesh Ram Tripathi (Known as Second Party to the ‘agreement to sell’) are liable to pay entire tax and other demand aroused in respect of compensation paid against the land

M/S. TIRUBALA INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-VI, KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Tirubala International Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of C-7, Panki Industrial Area, Vs. Income Tax, Range-Vi, Kanpur Kanpur, U.P. Pan:Aaect2086J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Vikas Garg, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Dcit-6, Kanpur Passed On 19.12.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ao, Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Addition Of Rs. 29,164/- On Account Of Late Payment Towards Employees Contribution To Esi. 2. That The Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate That The Payment Of Rs.29,164 Towards Employee'S Contribution To Provident Fund Was Made Before The "Due Date" Of Filing Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 Therefore There Could Not Be Any Addition Of The Aforesaid Amount To The Returned Income. 3. That The Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate That The Due Date As Mentioned In 36(1) (Va) Is To Be Read In Conjunction With Section 43B(B)

natural justice, equity and fair play. Ground No. "13" Because in light of settled legal principles, arising out of decisions of higher judicial authorities, the CIT(Appeals)-II, Kanpur erred in law and on facts in confirming the adhoc disallowance

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.

justice, he restricted the disallowance to 15%. On the issue of remittance to Dubai through a bank for payment of outstanding liability that was added back as not having been claimed as expenditure in A.Y. 2014-15. The ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to call for remittance certificates as well as Form 15CA and Form 15CB as proof

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

disallowance of foreign commission treating the same as prior period expenditure of Rs. 2,60,000/-. 5. That the appellant being aggrieved went in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who deleted the above additions but confirmed the addition amounting of Rs.2,96,50,131/- to the extent of six sundry creditor which ITA. No.139/LKW/2022 Page 6 of 158 were

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

disallowance of foreign commission treating the same as prior period expenditure of Rs. 2,60,000/-. 5. That the appellant being aggrieved went in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who deleted the above additions but confirmed the addition amounting of Rs.2,96,50,131/- to the extent of six sundry creditor which ITA. No.139/LKW/2022 Page 6 of 158 were

STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE,KANPUR vs. DY. CIT (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 State Bank Of India V. Dcit (Tds) The Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar- 7/119, Radiance Town, 208001. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar-208002. Pan:Knps02318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 State Bank Of India V. Addl. Cit (Tds) The Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar- 7/119, Radiance Town, 208001. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar-208002. Pan: Knps02318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21 07 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 07 2025 O R D E R

natural justice do hereby set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Authority to decide it afresh. The assessee is directed to approach the Assessing Officer and file the requisite evidences in support of its claim relating to non-deduction of tax. Grounds raised in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

STATE BANK OF INDIA,SMECC, ZONAL OFFICE,KANPUR vs. ACIT9TDS), KANPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 State Bank Of India V. Dcit (Tds) The Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar- 7/119, Radiance Town, 208001. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar-208002. Pan:Knps02318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 State Bank Of India V. Addl. Cit (Tds) The Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar- 7/119, Radiance Town, 208001. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar-208002. Pan: Knps02318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21 07 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 07 2025 O R D E R

natural justice do hereby set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Authority to decide it afresh. The assessee is directed to approach the Assessing Officer and file the requisite evidences in support of its claim relating to non-deduction of tax. Grounds raised in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

HARSAHAIMAL SHIAMLAL JEWELLERS PVIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), BAREILLY

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Harsahaimal Shiamlal Jewellers Shri Vimalendu Verma, Private Limited, 148, Civil Lines, Vs. Pcit (Central), Lucknow, U.P. Bareilly, U.P.-243001 Pan:Aacch3785L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Act, Passed By The Ld. Pcit, Central ,Lucknow On 17.02.2022, Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer, Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act On 29.07.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred, Are As Under:-

disallowance of Rs.2,50,000/- on this account and added the same to the returned income of the assessee. The ld. PCIT called for the case records and after perusal of the same, came to the conclusion that the assessment under section 143(3) of the A.Y. 2017-18 Harsahaimal Shiamlal Jewellers P. Ltd. Income Tax Act that was done

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

natural justice.\nFurther, it is also submitted that the assessee did not raise this ground\nbefore the A.O. nor before the Ld. CIT(A) but complied with all notices issued by the\nA.O.\nGround of Appeal Point No. 4\non the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of\nIncome Tax (Appeals) has erred