M/S U.P RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. The Dy. Cit Nigam Ltd. Range Vi Visheshwaraiya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Dy. Cit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Range Vi Nigam Ltd. Lucknow Visheshwaraiya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan: Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Department By: Smt. Sheela Chopra, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04 10 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 12 2021 O R D E R

disallowance in question be deleted. The ld. A.R. of the assessee has directed our attention to APB pages 139 to 149, which are the copies of the audited balance sheet, profit & loss account and computation chart of the assessee for assessment year 2010-11, as placed before the authorities below. 7. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, has placed

VIDYUT TRANSMISSION KARMACHARI VETAN BHOGI CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. CPC BANGALORE/ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

149 taxmann.com Section 80P, read with section 139, of 28 (Rajkot Trib.) IN THE the Income-tax Act, 1961 - ITAT RAJKOT BENCH Deductions - Income of co-operative Lunidhar Seva Sahkari societies (Claim raised in belated Mandali Ltd. v. Assessing return) - Assessment year 2019-20 - Officer (CPC) Assessee, a co-operative society claimed deduction under section 80P - Assessing Officer denied said

IBRAHIM INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoorassessment Year 2007-08 Ibrahim International Ltd. Earlier Acit-3, Vs. Kanpur Known As Ibrahim International Trading Co., 40/121, Hospital Road Parade, Kanpur 208001 Pan – Aaafi 9671F (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance on account of depreciation on the difference of amount debited and bill and therefore the addition of Rs.12,050/- is not warranted and therefore is deleted and in view of that Ground No.5 is allowed. 9. Now coming to Grounds No. 6 to 8, I find that while disposing of the appeal of the assessee

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD.,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. ACIT, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Acit Sitapur/Cpc, V. Limited Income Tax Deptt., C/O Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Bengaluru-560500. Lakhimpur Kheri, U.P.-241001. Pan:Aawfs0887P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26 11 2024

disallowance of deduction claimed Chapter VIA of the Act, was made by the Finance Act, 2021, w.e.f. 01.04.2021. The present case before us pertains to assessment year 2019-20 (previous year 2018-19). It can be readily inferred, therefore, that an assessee will not be hit by provisions of Section 80AC of the Act, having regard to the assessee claim

M/S PRAMOD TELECOM PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, in ITA. No

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

section 143(1).A similar view of the matter has been taken by the Indore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prashanti Engineering Works (P) Ltd vs ADIT (2023)149 taxmann.com 488 Indore. Finally, we observe that while deciding the case of Rohan Korgaonkar(2024) 159 taxmann.co,321(Bombay) , the Bombay High Court, after considering the case

M/S PRAMOD TELECOM PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, in ITA. No

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

section 143(1).A similar view of the matter has been taken by the Indore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prashanti Engineering Works (P) Ltd vs ADIT (2023)149 taxmann.com 488 Indore. Finally, we observe that while deciding the case of Rohan Korgaonkar(2024) 159 taxmann.co,321(Bombay) , the Bombay High Court, after considering the case

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

disallowances of expenses \nwhile invoking provision of section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is \nestimated. \n\n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while \nsustaining the addition deduction claimed u/s 80G of the extent of \ndonation of Rs.1,50,000/- out of Rs.14,06,000/- allowed part relief to the \nextent

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

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

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

disallowances of expenses\nwhile invoking provision of section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is\nestimated.\n\n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining deduction addition u/s 80G of the extent to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- out of Rs.14,06,000/- allowed part relief to the\nextent of Rs.6

SANTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, NFAC

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Santosh Kumar Shukla V. The Assessment Unit 11A/141, Vrindavan Colony Nfac Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bawps5372J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalabh Singh, 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 12.03.2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was An Employee Of Planning Research & Action Division Of State Planning Institute, Since 1993. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148A(B) Of The Act, Vide Dated 16.03.2022 For The Reason That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits/Time Deposits In His Bank Account. In Response To Notice Under Section Under Section 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.04.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of

149 and of section 148A r/w sec 148. 12. That the CIT Appeals Faceless has erred in law and on facts by invoking sec 69A ignoring the fact that the assessment was completed by addition of amount not belonging to Appellant nor was he the owner thereof but the real owner was a third person Smt Geeta Awasthi

M/S BEEAAR AUTOWHEELS INDIA PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ITO WARD 1(3), LUCKNOW-NEW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2020-21 M/S Beeaar Autowheels India V. The Income Tax Officer Pvt Ltd Ward-1(3) 9, Premier Building, Shahnazaf Aaykar Bhawan, 5, Ashok Road, Lucknow-226001. Nagar, Lucknow-New, Uttar Pradesh-226001. Pan:Aadcb8897L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri Deepak Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 08 2025 O R D E R

section 143(1).A similar view of the matter has been taken by the Indore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prashanti Engineering Works (P) Ltd vs ADIT (2023)149 taxmann.com 488 Indore. Finally, we observe that while deciding the case of Rohan Korgaonkar(2024) 159 taxmann.co,321(Bombay) , the Bombay High Court, after considering the case

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

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, in as much as the original assessment order dated 11-02-2016 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. That the Ld. PCIT was wrong in not passing an speaking order ignoring the submissions made by the assessee during proceeding u/s 263 rendering the order under appeal

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

149", "153A", "153D", "153B", "144A", "40A(3)", "80C", "80G", "54F", "68", "69A", "56(2)(vii)(b)"], "issues": "The primary issue was the validity of assessment orders passed in search cases where the AO allegedly did not properly apply for approval under section 153D of the Act. Other issues involved the disallowance

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

disallowances of Rs. 2,57,43,209/-, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal against original order. 2019-20 68,80,79,147 4,52,65,423 6.58 11% 7% 2020-21 1,59,98,27,836 10,07,00,526 6.29 11% 7% 2021-22 1,68,08,35,131 17,03,38,176 10.13 11% 10.13% Addition on extra

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

disallowances of Rs. 2,57,43,209/-, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal against original order. 2019-20 68,80,79,147 4,52,65,423 6.58 11% 7% 2020-21 1,59,98,27,836 10,07,00,526 6.29 11% 7% 2021-22 1,68,08,35,131 17,03,38,176 10.13 11% 10.13% Addition on extra

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

disallowances of Rs. 2,57,43,209/-, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal against original order. 2019-20 68,80,79,147 4,52,65,423 6.58 11% 7% 2020-21 1,59,98,27,836 10,07,00,526 6.29 11% 7% 2021-22 1,68,08,35,131 17,03,38,176 10.13 11% 10.13% Addition on extra

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA

disallowances of expenses\non non adherence of TDS provision under head TDS @ 30% of expenses of Rs.\n3074000/- where profit is estimated.\n3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.37,00,000/- out of total addition of Rs.\n52,00,000/- made on account of difference of investment