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

Section 14 A of the Act was calculated thus: "1,21,03,367 x 6,88,70,000 = Rs. 97,87,570 8,51,65,000" (D.1.1.1) Further the assessee’s claim that no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is attracted is also supported by orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court cases of South Indian Bank Limited

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

Section 14 A of the Act was calculated thus: "1,21,03,367 x 6,88,70,000 = Rs. 97,87,570 8,51,65,000" (D.1.1.1) Further the assessee’s claim that no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is attracted is also supported by orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court cases of South Indian Bank Limited

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

Section 14 A of the Act was calculated thus: "1,21,03,367 x 6,88,70,000 = Rs. 97,87,570 8,51,65,000" (D.1.1.1) Further the assessee’s claim that no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is attracted is also supported by orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court cases of South Indian Bank Limited

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

Section 14 A of the Act was calculated thus: "1,21,03,367 x 6,88,70,000 = Rs. 97,87,570 8,51,65,000" (D.1.1.1) Further the assessee’s claim that no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is attracted is also supported by orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court cases of South Indian Bank Limited

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)

disallowance for late payment of Employee’s Contribution to Welfare Fund and decided the issue as under: - “ 11.With regard to the reliance placed on the orders of the ITAT Raipur Bench by the ld. AR, we are inclined to agree with the ld. Sr. DR that an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarifies

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)

disallowance for late payment of Employee’s Contribution to Welfare Fund and decided the issue as under: - “ 11.With regard to the reliance placed on the orders of the ITAT Raipur Bench by the ld. AR, we are inclined to agree with the ld. Sr. DR that an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarifies

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

171 (Supreme Court). (D.1.1.2) Our attention was drawn by learned Departmental Representative to explanation inserted by Finance Act, 2022 in amendment of section 14A of the Act, reproduced below for the ease of reference: “[Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, the provisions of this section shall

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

171 (Supreme Court). (D.1.1.2) Our attention was drawn by learned Departmental Representative to explanation inserted by Finance Act, 2022 in amendment of section 14A of the Act, reproduced below for the ease of reference: “[Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, the provisions of this section shall

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

171 (Supreme Court). (D.1.1.2) Our attention was drawn by learned Departmental Representative to explanation inserted by Finance Act, 2022 in amendment of section 14A of the Act, reproduced below for the ease of reference: “[Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, the provisions of this section shall

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

disallowance for late payment of Employee’s Contribution to Welfare Fund and decided the issue as under: - “ 11.With regard to the reliance placed on the orders of the ITAT Raipur Bench by the ld. AR, we are inclined to agree with the ld. Sr. DR that an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarifies

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

disallowed them. Besides this, he also made a\ndisallowance of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-ax Act, 1961. This order\nwas revised and cancelled by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the\nAct on the ground that the expenses claimed for the creation of brand\nwere capital expenditure for creating an intangible asset. On appeal by\nthe assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S BHAGWAT SARAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BIJNOR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-14

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as the assessee I.T.A. No.475/Lkw/2017 Assessment Year:2013-14 4 had not deducted TDS on payments made to K. Lounge Tailors and therefore, Assessing Officer had rightly made the disallowance which the learned CIT(A) has wrongly allowed. 3. Learned A. R., on the other hand, submitted that the extra amount received

G.S.EXPRESS PVT.LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-CC-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is held to be partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 G.S. Express Private Ltd., C-877 Vs. The D. Commissioner Of Income Mahanagar, Lucknow Tax, P.K. Complex, Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aaccg5655J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao, Imposing A Penalty Under Section 271B On 29.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A)-3, Lucknow Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Considering That The Show Cause Notice U/S 271B Of 1. T. Act Dated 31.12.2019, Did Not Specify That Whether The Penalty Is For Failure To Get Accounts Audited Or Failure To Furnish The Report & Thus Non Striking Of Irrelevant Clause Renders The Penalty Notice Invalid As Also The Consequential Penalty Order As Illegal & Liable To Be Quashed. Without Prejudice To Above 2-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming Penalty Of Rs. 1,50,000/- U/S 2718 Of 1. T. Act, Without Appreciating That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Delay In Audit & Obtaining Report U/S 44Ab Of It Act As Due To Search & Seizure On 01.02.2018 The Entire Records Were Seized By Investigation Wing. 3-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Did Not Appreciate That Books Of Accounts & Related Records Were Seized By Investigation Wing & Only After Obtaining Copy Of Seized Documents

171 taxman 156 had held that the levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the permission being unclear, penalty was not sustainable. It was further argued that this matter had been considered in the case of SSA Emerald Meadows which had also been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

SH. SUKHVINDER SINGH,KANPUR vs. PR CIT, CENTRAL, KANPUR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

171 ITR 698 (All): it was held by jurisdictional High Court that merely because the assessment is brief and cryptic that itself would not be a case for revisional under section 263 of the Act. In the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. Vs. CIT 263 ITR 437: Hon'ble High Court held that A bare perusal of the aforesaid

SHRI CHETAN SHARMA,KANPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

171 ITR 698 (All): it was held by jurisdictional High Court that merely because the assessment is brief and cryptic that itself would not be a case for revisional under section 263 of the Act. In the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. Vs. CIT 263 ITR 437: Hon'ble High Court held that A bare perusal of the aforesaid

HORIZON DWELLINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriahorizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd V. Pcit, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (Up)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aacch6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

171 ITR 698 (All): Page 32 of 33 it was held by jurisdictional High Court that merely because the assessment is brief and cryptic that itself would not be a case for revisional under section 263 of the Act. In the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. Vs. CIT 263 ITR 437 (P & H): Hon'ble High Court held that

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there is no parameter that

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there is no parameter that