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

In the result, appeals vide I

disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was made\nsolely on the basis of investment by Assessee Company in SPVs without\nverifying objects of investment and understanding of relevant provision of law.\nIt is also submitted that section 14A carries heading 'Expenditure\nincurred in relation to income not includible in total income'\n\nAs per Section

STATE BANK OF INDIA, OVERSEAS BRANCH,KANPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

disallowance of LTC/LTA under section 10(5)\nof IT Act 1961, without appreciating that there was 'reasonable\ncause' for the said failure as per the provisions of Section 273B\nof the Act 1961.\n6. That the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the Learned\nCIT(Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon'ble\nMember, ITAT.\n7. That

BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, ADMINISTRETIVE OFFICE,KANPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

disallowance of LTC/LTA under section 10(5)\nof IT Act 1961, without appreciating that there was 'reasonable\ncause' for the said failure as per the provisions of Section 273B\nof the Act 1961.\n\n6. That the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the Learned\nCIT(Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon'ble\nMember, ITAT

BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, ADMINISTRETIVE OFFICE,KANPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

disallowance of LTC/LTA under section 10(5) of IT Act 1961, without appreciating that there was 'reasonable cause' for the said failure as per the provisions of Section 273B of the Act 1961.\n6. That the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the Learned CIT(Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon'ble Member, ITAT.\n7. That

STATE BANK OF INDIA, OVERSEAS BRANCH,KANPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

disallowance of LTC/LTA under section 10(5)\nof IT Act 1961, without appreciating that there was 'reasonable\ncause' for the said failure as per the provisions of Section 273B\nof the Act 1961.\n6.\nThat the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the Learned\nCIT(Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon'ble\nMember, ITAT.\n7.\nThat

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNIAN, LTD. ,LAKHIPUR KHERI vs. ITO WARD-3(4), LAKHIPUR-1

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

144/- and in doing so failed to consider that the return was filed within the extended due date prescribed by CBDT. 3. That Ld. C.I.T. (A) NFAC had further erred on facts and in law in incorrectly stating that the Return was filed beyond the time limit specified u/s 139(1) of I.T. Act and thereby erroneously invoked the provisions

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

144 of the Act, there may not be in scope for such technical disallowances. Hence, addition of Rs. 9,22,200/- may not be sustained. Issue No. 12 – AY 2021-22 Addition due to violate the provision of section

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

144 of the Act, there may not be in scope for such technical disallowances. Hence, addition of Rs. 9,22,200/- may not be sustained. Issue No. 12 – AY 2021-22 Addition due to violate the provision of section

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

144 of the Act, there may not be in scope for such technical disallowances. Hence, addition of Rs. 9,22,200/- may not be sustained. Issue No. 12 – AY 2021-22 Addition due to violate the provision of section

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

section 11. The Learned AR further submitted that the matter of eligibility for exemption of the assessee authority, was covered by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (2022) 144 taxman.com 78, as one of the authorities, which was set up under the same act and for similar objects

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.

144/- that had been upheld should be deleted. With regard to the disallowance of Rs. 7,54,222/- on maintenance of office of Dubai, it was reiterated that since the expenditure pertained to a previous year and had not been debited during the year as an expense, no disallowance could be made. Regarding disallowance of expenses at ROC office also

SUNHARI LAL YADAV,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(4), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Sunhari Lal Yadav V. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4) 5, Meerpur Cantt, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Meerpur, Pin-208001. Kanpur-208001. Tan/Pan:Abepy8185F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Dr O R D E R

disallowing deduction under Chapter VIA of Rs. 1,17,265/without appreciating that the deductions were legally allowable and duly claimed in the return. 9. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in not considering the fact that the original assessment was framed under section 144

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

section 251(1)(a) and setting aside the order to AO without appreciating that the order was not passed u/s 144. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the DIN was issued in the name of non-existing entity and hence the order passed

RAM RATAN SINGH PAL,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Ram Ratan Singh Pal V. The Assessment Unit 5C/111, Girdhar Kunj Nfac Sector 5, Vrindavan Colony Telibagh, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ahqpp7018N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.01.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 15.01.2021, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.2,81,520/- Under The Head Income From Salary. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & A Refund Of Rs.2,50,510/- Was Created. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income Under Section 139(5) Of The Act On 25.02.2021, Declaring The Same Income Originally Returned, I.E., Rs.2,81,520/-. In The Revised Return Of Income, The Assessee Declared Income From Salary At Rs.2,81,520/- & Income From

144 of the Act and worked out the income of the assessee as under: Income from salary as per return of Rs.3,31,523/- income Addition of business/professional Rs.21,65,535/- income on estimate basis Gross total income. Rs.24,97,058/- Less Deduction under chapter VIA as Rs.50,000/- per return of income Total income Rs.24,47,060/- (rounded

ASHRAY VENTURES PVT. LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSING OFFICER CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUCKNOW

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Ashray Ventures Pvt. Ltd. V. The Assessing Officer Gole Market Central Circle – 1 Mahanagar, Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aakca3580E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

144 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.2 lakhs. 2.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an order ex-parte

MUKESH KUMAR SINGH,HARDOI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2),, HARDOI-/NFAC

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Mukesh Kumar Singh V. The Income Tax Officer 3 (2) Sadhinawa Uchwal Hardoi-1/Nfac Hardoi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bxkps8596P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.05.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Engaged In The Business Of Recovery Of Loans & Emi. The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.18,40,681/-. Subsequently, The Assessee Revised His Return Of Income On 23.11.2020, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.12,17,600/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason That The "Taxable Income Shown In Revised Return Is Less Than The Taxable Income Shown In The Original Return & Large Refund Has Been Claimed (Business Itr) Reduction Of Income In

144 read with section 144B of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.39,28,413/-. 2.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed ex-parte

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

In the result all six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

section 11. The Learned AR further \nsubmitted that the matter of eligibility for exemption of the assessee authority, was covered by \nthe decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban \nDevelopment Authority (2022) 144 taxman.com 78, as one of the authorities, which was set up \nunder the same act and for similar objects

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

section 11. The Learned AR further \nsubmitted that the matter of eligibility for exemption of the assessee authority, was covered by \n34\nthe decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban \nDevelopment Authority (2022) 144 taxman.com 78, as one of the authorities, which was set up \nunder the same act and for similar