UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for payment made without deduction of TDS. To ascertain the issue a reference may also be made to the working manual which provides for recognition of income of the appellant as under - Some of the Government Departments, Government Organizations and other clients agree to get their works executed on the basis

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

200/- being disallowances of expenses on\nnon adherence of TDS provision under head TDS @ 30% of expenses of Rs.\n3074000/- where profit is estimated.\n\n3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,000/- being disallowances of expenses\nwhile invoking provision of section

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

200/-. The CPC, Bangalore disallowed the claim of deduction for payment of Rs.6,54,382/- under section 36(1)(v) of the Income

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

200/-. The CPC, Bangalore disallowed the claim of deduction for payment of Rs.6,54,382/- under section 36(1)(v) of the Income

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

disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), of Rs.7,07,200/-, representing employees’ shares towards contribution to PF and ESI, which the assessee had deposited beyond the due date mentioned in the provisions of the relevant section

M/S BRIGHT 4 WHEEL SALES PRIVATE LIMITED ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, WARD -1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Bright 4 Wheel Sales V. The Dy. Cit Private Limited Ward 1 11/Cp-6, Vikas Nagar, Lucknow Ring Road, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccb8810E (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

200/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment, assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.9,59,28,460/-, disallowing a sum of Rs.2,87,268/- by applying the provisions of section

AJAY ARORA,KANPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, KANPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora

disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) is attracted on account of non-deduction and deposit of tax at source thereon in-as-much as the same qualifies as ‘fees for technical services’, which term stands given an extended meaning u/s. 9(1)(vii), which provision in the relevant part reads as under: (emphasis, supplied) Income deemed to accrue or arise

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

200/- being disallowances of expenses\non non adherence of TDS provision under head TDS @ 30% of expenses of Rs.\n3074000/- where profit is estimated.\n\n3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,000/- being disallowances of expenses\nwhile sustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,000/- being disallowances

LUCKNOW EVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. I.T.O., LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

disallowances, which is not in accordance with law and which needs to be deleted. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 27 6. Learned D. R., on the other hand, vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the objects of the assessee may at first appear to be of general public utility, however, sale and purchase

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

disallowances, which is not in accordance with law and which needs to be deleted. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 27 6. Learned D. R., on the other hand, vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the objects of the assessee may at first appear to be of general public utility, however, sale and purchase

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

disallowances, which is not in accordance with law and which needs to be deleted. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 27 6. Learned D. R., on the other hand, vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the objects of the assessee may at first appear to be of general public utility, however, sale and purchase

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

disallowances, which is not in accordance with law and which needs to be deleted. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 27 6. Learned D. R., on the other hand, vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the objects of the assessee may at first appear to be of general public utility, however, sale and purchase

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

disallowances, which is not in accordance with law and which needs to be deleted. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 27 6. Learned D. R., on the other hand, vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the objects of the assessee may at first appear to be of general public utility, however, sale and purchase

SURYA INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance has been made on the basis of information uploaded by the appellant in the Form 3CD which has I.T.A. No.323/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2020-21 6 been prepared by the Auditor on examination of books of account/ documents/evidences, this ground of appeal is dismissed.” (C.1) At the time of hearing, learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that the amount

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

200/- being disallowances of expenses on non adherence of TDS provision under head TDS @ 30% of expenses of Rs. 3074000/- where profit is estimated. 3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while sustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,000/- being disallowances of expenses on provision of section

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

200/- being 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.9,65,000/- being disallowances of expenses\non provisions of section

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

200/- being 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.9,65,000/- being disallowances of expenses\nwhile invoking provision of section