U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-VI, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

19 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 20 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 21 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 22 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 23 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 24 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 25 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 26 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 27 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

19 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 20 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 21 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 22 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 23 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 24 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 25 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 26 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 27 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20

DCIT, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

19 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 20 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 21 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 22 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 23 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 24 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 25 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 26 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 27 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

19 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 20 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 21 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 22 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 23 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 24 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 25 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 26 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 27 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

19 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 20 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 21 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 22 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 23 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 24 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 25 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 26 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 27 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20

M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. D/ACIT-1,CENTRAL-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 (B) I.T.A. No.454/Lkw/2020 Appeal vide I.T.A. No.454/Lkw/2020 for assessment year 1017-18 has been filed by Revenue in which tax effect of disputed issues is Rs.59,39,941/-. This tax effect is below the minimum monetary limit of Rs.60 lacs prescribed by CBDT vide Circular No.09/2024 for filing the appeal in Income

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUCKNOW, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW vs. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., VIBHUTI KHAND GOMTI NAGAR LKO

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 (B) I.T.A. No.454/Lkw/2020 Appeal vide I.T.A. No.454/Lkw/2020 for assessment year 1017-18 has been filed by Revenue in which tax effect of disputed issues is Rs.59,39,941/-. This tax effect is below the minimum monetary limit of Rs.60 lacs prescribed by CBDT vide Circular No.09/2024 for filing the appeal in Income

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 (B) I.T.A. No.454/Lkw/2020 Appeal vide I.T.A. No.454/Lkw/2020 for assessment year 1017-18 has been filed by Revenue in which tax effect of disputed issues is Rs.59,39,941/-. This tax effect is below the minimum monetary limit of Rs.60 lacs prescribed by CBDT vide Circular No.09/2024 for filing the appeal in Income

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

19,82,555/-. In the current year, the assessee has furnished only few sample bills to prove that it is not a case of work contract but supply of material only. The assessee's contention is not tenable as in A.Y. 2010-11, it was notice that materials have been procured from the parties who are JE/COegistered under the category

GENUS POWER INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITTED,NOIDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTERAL), LUCKNOW

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

155:\n\"In the first instance it was contended by learned Counsel for the assessee\nthat the very premise on which order under section 263 was made against\nthe assessee, namely, that the Income Tax Officer has not at all examined\nthe goodwill account is not existent. According to him, it is apparent from\nthe record that the goodwill account

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

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

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

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

155 taxmann.com 276 (MP HC): This ruling similarly highlighted that for the extended period of limitation under Section 149(1)(b) to apply, the income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment must amount to or be likely to amount to ₹50 lakh or more. It distinguished between gross receipts and income chargeable to tax. 3. Abdul Majeed

M/S SADANA ELECTRIC STORE,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Sadana Electric Store V. Dy. Cit 59, Chander Nagar Market Range – 6 Alambagh, Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aamfs5053M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri D.D. Chopra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 11 2024 O R D E R

19 11 2024 O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 01.05.2024, passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a registered partnership firm dealing in retail

GURDAS MAL ARORA,KANPUR vs. THE A O CIRCLE-1(2)(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshragurdas Mal Arora V. The Assessing Officer, 21/L/4, Daboli, Circle-1(2)(1) Kanpur. 16/69, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Afepm4342J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit-Dr O R D E R

disallowing part of the salary paid by the assessee to persons specified u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The relevant portion of the assessment order is reproduced as under: - Page 3 of 35 Page 4 of 35 Page 5 of 35 Page 6 of 35 Page 7 of 35 (B.1) The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid additions

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

disallowed, the net profit rate of 11% applied by the Assessing Officer is too high when appellant has shown comparatively higher profit margin of 10.13% and 9.68% in subsequent years i.e. A.Y. 2021-22 and A.Y. 2022- 23 to cover up the deficiencies of unproved sundry creditors/remission of liabilities found during search proceeding. Therefore, I am of the considered view

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

disallowed, the net profit rate of 11% applied by the Assessing Officer is too high when appellant has shown comparatively higher profit margin of 10.13% and 9.68% in subsequent years i.e. A.Y. 2021-22 and A.Y. 2022- 23 to cover up the deficiencies of unproved sundry creditors/remission of liabilities found during search proceeding. Therefore, I am of the considered view