MOHD HASEEB,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2018-19 Mohd. Haseeb V. The Ito 551 Jha, Ram Nagar Range 6(2) Kanpur Road, Alambagh Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abcph6980P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16 06 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 06 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 29.12.2021, For Assessment Year 2018-19, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because Without Considering The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.23,88,734/- Under Section 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)X) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Being Delay In Deposition Of Employees Share Of Provident Fund. 2. That In Any Case & In Any View Of The Matter, Impugned Addition/Allowance Assessment Order Are Bad In Law, Illegal, Unjustified, Contrary To Facts & Law & Based Upon Recording Of Incorrect Facts & Finding, Without Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Hearing, In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice & The Same Deserves To Be Quashed.

disallowable or not with reference to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B, a similar question came up for consideration before Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, (2014) 366 ITR 170. Therein Assessee collected Rs.51,06,02,712/- from its employees towards provident fund Page 5 of 17

MR. SHITIJ DHAWAN ,KANPUR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,, SPECIAL RANGE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Shitij Dhawan V. The Assessing Officer 122/235, Fazalganj Special Range Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Acqpd3380G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 04 2022 O R D E R

disallowance be deleted. Page 2 of 17 3. Because on a proper consideration of the facts and reading of the provisions of section

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

M/S AVADH HOSPITAL AND HEART CENTRE,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-6, LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW- NEW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

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

17 Section 143(2) was issued. Assessing Officer completed assessment by order dated 24.12.2010 under Section 143(3) disallowing Rs.12

M/S. AVADH HOSPITAL AND HEART CENTRE,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-6, LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

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

17 Section 143(2) was issued. Assessing Officer completed assessment by order dated 24.12.2010 under Section 143(3) disallowing Rs.12

M/S R.K. ENGINEERS SALES LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD - 3, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S R. K. Engineers Sales V. The Dcit Limited Ward 3 B-116, 1St Floor Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aabcr8335D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms Shweta Mittal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

17. We find that with respect to employees contribution to Provident Fund, as to whether disallowable or not with reference to Section

RYDERS EQUESTRIAN PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALURU, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 Ryders Equestrain Products V. The Dy. Cit Pvt. Ltd. Circle 2(1)(I) 50-A, 150, Feet Road Jajmau Lucknow Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaecr3352B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15 06 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 06 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 29.9.2021, For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

17 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining that the order passed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is without Jurisdiction, therefore disallowance

M/S MAHAVIR PAINTS AND ADHESIVES PVT.LTD,KANPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(3), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Mahavir Paints & V. The Income Tax Officer Adhesives Pvt. Ltd. Ward 2(3)(3) 123/760-D, Fazal Ganj Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaacm9521B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 04 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 20.12.2021, For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because The Cit(A)/Nfac Has .Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.1,63,230/- Being Amount Paid Towards Esic & Epf Of The Employees, Which Amount Being Allowable Both On The Basis Of Interpretation Of The Statute & On The Basis Of The Decision Of The Apex Court In The, Case Of Allom Extrusion 319 Ir 306 (Sc). Pr. Cit Vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. & The Allahabad High Court In The Case Of Shagun Foundry Private Limited Vs. Cit ,Ita No. .87 Of 20061 'The Same Be Allowed. 2. Because The Cit(A)/Nfac Has Failed To Appreciate That The Amount Of Rs.1,63,230/- Being Esic & Epf, Being A Business Expenditure Incurred For The Purpose Of Business Having Been 'Paid Before The Filing Of The Return Of Income, The Same Being An Allowable Business

17. We find that with respect to employees contribution to Provident Fund, as to whether disallowable or not with reference to Section

DEE GEE SAW & METAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

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

17 26.09.2008. Return was processed under Section 143(1) and thereafter on scrutiny, notice under Section 143(2) was issued. Assessing Officer completed assessment by order dated 24.12.2010 under Section 143(3) disallowing

DEE GEE SAW & METAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

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

17 26.09.2008. Return was processed under Section 143(1) and thereafter on scrutiny, notice under Section 143(2) was issued. Assessing Officer completed assessment by order dated 24.12.2010 under Section 143(3) disallowing

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

section 43B of the Act. It remains undisputed that the labour cess is part of the contract account. That being so, the assessee is correct in contending that the addition, if any, is maintainable only in the hands of the client of the assessee Corporation and not in the hands of the assessee. The provisions made for labour cess

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

section 43B of the Act. It remains undisputed that the labour cess is part of the contract account. That being so, the assessee is correct in contending that the addition, if any, is maintainable only in the hands of the client of the assessee Corporation and not in the hands of the assessee. The provisions made for labour cess

M/S PREMIER CAR SALES LTD,HAZRATGANG vs. THE ACIT -5, LUCKNOW NEW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

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

disallow deductions claimed merely by making a book entry based on the mercantile system of accounting. At the same time, Section 43B made it mandatory for the Department to grant deduction in computing income under Section 28 in the year in which tax, duty, cess etc. is actually paid. Parliament took cognizance of the fact that Page 11 of 17

M/S PREMIER CAR SALES LTD,HAZRATGANJ vs. THE ACIT -5, LUCKNOW NEW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

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

disallow deductions claimed merely by making a book entry based on the mercantile system of accounting. At the same time, Section 43B made it mandatory for the Department to grant deduction in computing income under Section 28 in the year in which tax, duty, cess etc. is actually paid. Parliament took cognizance of the fact that Page 11 of 17

M/S. RUPANI FOOTCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR NAGAR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Rupani Footcare V. The Income Tax Officer Private Limited Ward 2(3)(1) 122/334, Shastri Nagar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaecr1354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

17. We find that with respect to employees contribution to Provident Fund, as to whether disallowable or not with reference to Section

RAMESHWAR RAI,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2018-19 Rameshwar Rai V. The Ito-2 5, Civil Lines Bareilly Opp. Rohila Motel Bareilly Tan/Pan:Afypr0788R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Written Submission By The Assessee. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06 04 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 5.8.2021, For Assessment Year 2018-19, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Id. Cit (Appeals) (Nfac) Has Grossly Erred On Facts & Law In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.3,37,008/- Made By The A.O. On A/C Of Employee'S Contribution Of Esi & P.F. Being Late Payment While It Has Been Deposited Before The Due Date Of Filing The Return, After Ignoring The Facts & Law As Laid Down By Hon'Ble Allahabad High Court Which Is A Jurisdictional High Court. 2. While Confirming The Addition The Id. Cit (A) Has Grossly Erred In Applying The Case Laws Of Various High Courts When The Law Laid Down By Jurisdictional High Court Was Already Available & Hon'Ble Supreme Court Had Already Dismissed Slp Filed By Deptt. Against The Order Of Rajasthan High Court. 3. The Addition Further Suffers From An Illegality Wherein The A.O. Has Erred In Making The Adjustments In Returned

17. We find that with respect to employees contribution to Provident Fund, as to whether disallowable or not with reference to Section

ULTRA VALUE,LUCKNOW vs. ITO (1)(1), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 Ultra Value V. The Ito (1)(1) C-1619/12, Rajajipuram Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaefu0694G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashok Seth, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06 04 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 21.9.2021 For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Income Returned Should Have Been Accepted. 2. That Application Filed U/S 154 Should Have Been Accepted. 3. The Addition Made By Learned Lower Court Was Not Within The Preview Of Adjustments Which Could Be Made U/S 143(1)(A). 4. That In The Facts & Legal Aspects Of The Case Learned Lower Court Erred In Holding That Amendment Made To Section 36(1)(Va) By Finance Act, 2021 Were Retrospective In Nature. 5. That The Learned Lower Court Erred In Facts & Legal Aspects Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Made Of Page 2 Of 17

17. We find that with respect to employees contribution to Provident Fund, as to whether disallowable or not with reference to Section

SHAKUN SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 4(1), LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

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

17 Essae Teraoka P. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2014) 366 ITR 408. Dispute relates to A.Y. 2008-09. Assessee filed Return on 26.09.2008. Return was processed under Section 143(1) and thereafter on scrutiny, notice under Section 143(2) was issued. Assessing Officer completed assessment by order dated 24.12.2010 under Section 143(3) disallowing