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

133A [other than under sub-section (2A) of the said section], on or after the 1st day of April, 2021 but before the 1st day of September, 2024, the provisions of sections 147 to 151 shall apply as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024.] Further, AO while passing the order has not taken

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR., KANPUR vs. M/S. SUSHRUT INSTITUTE OF PLASTIC SURGERY PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic Central Circle 2 Surgery Private Limited Kanpur 29, Shahmeena Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.15/Lkw/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No.30/Lkw/2023] Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic V. The Acit Surgery Private Limited Central Circle 2 29, Shahmeena Road Kanpur Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Cross - Objector) (Respondent)

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.16,99,00,480/-. 2.4 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Act. ITA No.30/LKW/2023

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

133A, other than under\nsub-section (2A) 97 [***] of that section, on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, in\nthe case of the assessee; or (iii) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior\napproval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, that any money, bullion,\njewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned under section\n132

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 of depreciation expenses which\nis illegal and liable to be deleted.\n3. The assessee reserves the right to add/amend one or more ground of\nappeal during the course of hearing.\"\n\n19. The assessee has raised the additional grounds of appeal\nare as under: -\n\nIT(SS)A NO. 93/LKW/2022 for A.Y. 2005-06\n\n“1. Because

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. M/S.DEE CONTROL AND ELECTRIC PRIVATE LIMITED, KANPUR

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

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

133A was conducted on 28.08.2012 in the case of the assessee company and various documents were impounded. Subsequently, correspondence was exchanged with the AO of M/s DSC Ltd., who provided three copies of purchase deed between that assessee and M/s Dee Control Electrical P. Ltd. for purchase of equipment / machine on 3.07.2012 for Rs.48 Lacs

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR vs. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowed. In the assessment order, it has been held that this whole transaction of purchase and sales of shares is a colorable device and is a fabricated transaction and same was held as bogus. "It is, therefore, requested that all the available material specifically pertaining to the appellant that has been received from the D.I.T(investigation), Kolkata or gathered through

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

disallowed despite the assessee having been engaged in the education activities, duly registered under section 12A of he Act. (ii) That the above exemption has been denied invoking the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, without giving any specific findings in this regard. Page 18 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 4.1 Section

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

disallowed despite the assessee having been engaged in the education activities, duly registered under section 12A of he Act. (ii) That the above exemption has been denied invoking the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, without giving any specific findings in this regard. Page 18 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 4.1 Section

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

section 143(3). 2.1 Because the learned 1st appellate authority ought not to have disallowed Rs.96,65,803/- in respect of interest payments on FDRs. 2.2 Because the learned 1st appellate authority erred in stating that the relevant documents in respect of interest on FDRs were not provided by the assessee whereas the 1st appellate authority ignored the fact that

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

section 143(3). 2.1 Because the learned 1st appellate authority ought not to have disallowed Rs.96,65,803/- in respect of interest payments on FDRs. 2.2 Because the learned 1st appellate authority erred in stating that the relevant documents in respect of interest on FDRs were not provided by the assessee whereas the 1st appellate authority ignored the fact that

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

section 143(3). 2.1 Because the learned 1st appellate authority ought not to have disallowed Rs.96,65,803/- in respect of interest payments on FDRs. 2.2 Because the learned 1st appellate authority erred in stating that the relevant documents in respect of interest on FDRs were not provided by the assessee whereas the 1st appellate authority ignored the fact that

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

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

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, commission of export sales is not an allowable expenditure on payment basis as the assessee is regularly following Mercantile system of accounting. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.12,20,50,000/- on account

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, commission of export sales is not an allowable expenditure on payment basis as the assessee is regularly following Mercantile system of accounting. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.12,20,50,000/- on account

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, commission of export sales is not an allowable expenditure on payment basis as the assessee is regularly following Mercantile system of accounting. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.12,20,50,000/- on account

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, commission of export sales is not an allowable expenditure on payment basis as the assessee is regularly following Mercantile system of accounting. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.12,20,50,000/- on account