DY. C.I.T., RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2011-12

disallowed for Rs.9,29,60,114/-. Learned CIT(A) in the present case has given his findings by holding the order of reassessment

DY. C.I.T., RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2011-12

disallowed for Rs.9,29,60,114/-. Learned CIT(A) in the present case has given his findings by holding the order of reassessment

U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-VI(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2011-12

disallowed for Rs.9,29,60,114/-. Learned CIT(A) in the present case has given his findings by holding the order of reassessment

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

reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 and the validity of approvals granted under Section 153D. Additionally, disputes exist regarding the estimation of net profit rates, disallowances

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

disallowance of depreciation is Rs.5,61,657/),\ndisallowed by the AO, the order of the CIT(A) is contrary to\nfacts, bad in law and the same be deleted.\n2.4 In assessment years 2011-12 and 2011-12 also reassessment

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed by the AO, the order of the CIT(A) is contrary to facts, bad in law and the same be deleted. 2.6.2 GROUNDS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15: 1. Because the entire reassessment

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed by the AO, the order of the CIT(A) is contrary to facts, bad in law and the same be deleted. 2.6.2 GROUNDS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15: 1. Because the entire reassessment

SACHIN VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance of Rs.2,22,289/- on account of interest on unsecured loan. 6. That the assessment completed by learned Assessing Officer is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful as no addition can be made merely on doubt or presumption without bringing any positive evidences. 7. That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in not providing proper and adequate opportunity to the appellant

KAMAL KANT VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance of Rs.2,22,289/- on account of interest on unsecured loan. 6. That the assessment completed by learned Assessing Officer is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful as no addition can be made merely on doubt or presumption without bringing any positive evidences. 7. That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in not providing proper and adequate opportunity to the appellant

M/S STANDARD FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT LTD,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance of Rs.2,22,289/- on account of interest on unsecured loan. 6. That the assessment completed by learned Assessing Officer is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful as no addition can be made merely on doubt or presumption without bringing any positive evidences. 7. That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in not providing proper and adequate opportunity to the appellant

KHANDELWAL SOYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,RAMPUR vs. ACIT(CENTERAL), BAREILLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the\nterms indicated hereinbefore

disallowance is made\non the basis of the original return, more particularly, commission\nexpenses and other expenses debited in Profit & Loss account.\nHe contended that there is not even a single addition based on\nthe incriminating evidence recovered from the premises of the\nassessee during the course of search action. Therefore, he prayed\nthat the impugned additions may be directed

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

disallowances to\nthe extent of Rs. 59619661/-\nremaining deduction of Rs.\n3164146/- is sustained\nconsidering the earlier order of\nCIT(A) dt. 19/12/2023.\n[Para 8.16 Page 102]\nAppeal filed by\nAssessee\nITA\n17/LKW/2024 &\nCO1/LKW/2025\n07.01.2025 along\nwith other legal\ngrounds.\n(A.2) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal\n(\"ITAT\" for short), separate paper

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

In the result, appeals vide I

disallowances to\nthe extent of Rs.59619661/-\nremaining deduction of Rs.\n3164146/- is sustained\nconsidering the earlier order of\nCIT(A) dt. 19/12/2023.\n[Para 8.16 Page 102]\nAppeal filed by\nAssessee ITA\n17/LKW/2024 &\nCO1/LKW/2025\n07.01.2025 along\nwith other legal\ngrounds.\n\n(A.2) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal\n(\"ITAT\" for short), separate paper

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

disallowances to\nthe extent of Rs.59619661/-\nremaining deduction of Rs.\n3164146/- is sustained\nconsidering the earlier order of\nCIT(A) dt. 19/12/2023.\n[Para 8.16 Page 102]\nAppeal filed by\nAssessee\nITA\n17/LKW/2024 &\nCO1/LKW/2025\n07.01.2025 along\nwith other legal\ngrounds.\n\n(A.2) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal\n(\"ITAT\" for short), separate paper

BHAWANI DEVELOPERS,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW-NEW

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid\ndirections

disallowed by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the act and\nadded to the total income of the assessee.\n3.8.6 In view of above stated facts, I am satisfied that the assessee has under reported its\nincome by misreporting. Hence penalty proceedings u/s 270A are initiated separately for\nunder reporting of income in consequences of misreporting.\n3.9\nVariation

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

reassessment proceedings necessary information being bank account, identity of donors their PAN and other information was provided to Ld. AO. When all the evidences and supportive documents were submitted to substantiate the facts then it is Page 15 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 duty of the assessing office to make proper enquiry

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

reassessment proceedings necessary information being bank account, identity of donors their PAN and other information was provided to Ld. AO. When all the evidences and supportive documents were submitted to substantiate the facts then it is Page 15 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 duty of the assessing office to make proper enquiry

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

disallowing the claim u/s 801B(10) of the Act. 5. After careful consideration of the facts, as indicated above, as also the past behavior of the assessee company particularly with regard to its willful withholding of the tax audit report which it was mandatorily required to be obtained in accordance . with the provisions stipulated u/s 44AB