STATE BANK OF INDIA, OVERSEAS BRANCH,KANPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

disallowance of LTC/LTA under section 10(5)\nof IT Act 1961, without appreciating that there was 'reasonable\ncause' for the said failure as per the provisions of Section 273B\nof the Act 1961.\n6. That the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the Learned\nCIT(Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon'ble\nMember, ITAT.\n7. That

BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, ADMINISTRETIVE OFFICE,KANPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

disallowance of LTC/LTA under section 10(5) of IT Act 1961, without appreciating that there was 'reasonable cause' for the said failure as per the provisions of Section 273B of the Act 1961.\n6. That the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the Learned CIT(Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon'ble Member, ITAT.\n7. That

FUTURE MONEY SALES AND MARKETING PVT.LTD, A-28,NEAR BANKEY BIHARI TAMPEL RAJENDRA NAGER, BAREILLY-243001,,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(2),BAREILLY-NEW., BAREILLY-NEW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriafuture Money Sales & Income Tax Officer-1(2) V. Marketing Pvt. Ltd Rampur Garden, Bareilly- A-28, Near Bankey Bihari New-243001. Tample, Rajendra Nagar, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aabcf4395H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 10 2024 O R D E R

disallowance out of other expenses. The assessee filed appeal in the office of the Ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal filed by the assessee in the office of the Ld. CIT(A) was beyond time limit prescribed u/s 249(2) of the Act. Vide aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 20/04/2023, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal

MOHD. AYAZ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

disallowance under section 40A(3) since the assessee had not furnished the necessary documents as outlined earlier in this order and was admitting that the major item of cash expenditure was purchase of Cattles from unorganized sector and failed to provide evidence in tune with the above Circular and clarification, the contention of the assessee that the transactions were mentioned

SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH ,HARDOI vs. ITO-3(2),HARDOI-1, HARDOI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrait(Ss) A. Nos. 795 To 798/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shailendra Kumar Singh Ito-3(2) V. Subhan Khera Sandila, Hardoi- Hardoi-1 241305. Uttar Pradesh-241305. Pan:Cvqps4275L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By: Shri Naeem Khan, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

disallowance of deduction under chapter V1-A Actual Facts: The claim referenced above is valid, and supporting documentation has been included for your reference. c) An addition of Rs 7,54,892/was made with respect to agricultural income, Actual Facts: The appellant owns 18 bighas of agricultural land utilized for farming purposes. The aforementioned proceeds are directly associated with this

BHAVAN RAVAT,RAEBARELI vs. ASSESSING AUTHORITY NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Bhavan Ravat Assessing Authority V. Vill. Rampur Sudauli, Nfac Raebareli-229301. Delhi Pan:Ajwpr1755Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12 03 2025 O R D E R

disallowed the condonation of delay, despite there being sufficient causes with the assessee for not filing the appeal in time as per Section 249

CHARAK HELTH CARE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-CC-2, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

disallow its entire expenses under section 143(1). It placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Petroleum Sports Promotion (2014) 44 taxman.com 322 (Delhi); Sh. Vaishnav Polytechnic College Governed by VSK Market Tech Educational Society (2020) 122 taxman.com 287 (Indore Trib) in both of which the Courts and Tribunal had held that the expenditure

YASH INFRATECH,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Yash Infratech V. The Acit A-78, Indira Nagar Range 1 Lucknow (U.P) Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aabfy1381R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R

disallowance made under section 40A(3) of the Act. These judicial precedents have been included by the assessee in the paper book submitted by the assessee and are as under: 1. Vikrant Happy Homes (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in [2022] 138 taxmann.com 559 (ITAT, Pune). 2. Vijayeta Buildcon (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in [2021] 123 taxmann.com 133 (ITAT

NARENDRA SACHIN ENTERPRISES,LUCKNOW vs. ITO NFAC, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallow cash payments, without appreciating the applicability of statutory exceptions under Rule 6DD and without examining the genuine and bona fide nature of the transactions.” I.T.A. No.665/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 3 (B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is doing business of retail sale of country made liquor through licensed shop. The assessee filed

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance of interest on unsecured loan. 6. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id."CIT(A)" should have directed the AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 270A of the Act. 7. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 8. BECAUSE each ground taken

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. J/DCIT-CC,, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance of interest on unsecured loan. 6. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id."CIT(A)" should have directed the AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 270A of the Act. 7. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 8. BECAUSE each ground taken

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance of interest on unsecured loan. 6. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id."CIT(A)" should have directed the AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 270A of the Act. 7. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 8. BECAUSE each ground taken

SATYAWADI HARISHCHANDRA SWASTHYA PARIKSHAN SAMITI,LUCKNOW vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 11 of I.T Act and assessed at Income of Rs.33,87,763/- being Aggregate Income shown in the Income Tax Return. The Ld. CPC failed to understand that Audit Report in Form 10B has been duly E-Filed on 23.09.2018 vide acknowledgement No 302776101230918 enclosed as per Annexure A which is verifiable as per e-profile. Thus the disallowance

UP GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed out of advertising expenses, loss in transit during wheat purchase, deduction by FCI on wheat bills, mandi tax, milling charges and driage charges. Section 270A of the Act did not envisage imposing penalty if any addition is made on estimate basis. It was also submitted that estimated addition of 10% of sundry creditors had been made on account failure

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

249 & 251/LKW/2024 Page 5 of 13 1. Such land is situate in any area referred to in item (a) or item (b) of subclause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2 2. Such land during the period of two years s immediately preceding the sale ‘of transfer was being used for agricultural purposes by such Hindu ‘undivided family or individual

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

249 & 251/LKW/2024 Page 5 of 13 1. Such land is situate in any area referred to in item (a) or item (b) of subclause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2 2. Such land during the period of two years s immediately preceding the sale ‘of transfer was being used for agricultural purposes by such Hindu ‘undivided family or individual

PIPALART MEDIA SERVICES LLP,DELHI vs. ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW NEW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

249 (Kolkata I.T.A.T.) I.T.A. No.43/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2018-19 3 Our specific attention was invited to the order of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. B. Foundry 185 ITR 555 (All). 3. Learned D. R., on the other hand placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 4. I have heard the rival

THAKUR ROSHAN SINGH,BAREILLY vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Thakur Roshan Singh, Smirti Sansthan, Vs. Income Tax Officer Vill Chathiya Faizu, Shahpur, Baniyan (Exemption), Ward, Bareilly Faridpur, Bareilly Pan: Aabat8692F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 4.07.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 16.04.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Fact & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Made By Assessing Officer Rs. 60,20,000/- As Building Expenditure For Charitable Purposes, Arbitrarily Rejecting The Explanation Furnished By The Assessee. 2. Because, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Fact & In Law That Such College Is Being Constructed & Run In The Remote Village Where In Due To Various Exigencies & Not Availability Of The Banking Facilities, Payments Are Made In Cash. 3. Because, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Fact & In Law That The Payments Of Construction Had Made Not Being Rejected By The Ld. Ao. However, Due To Ongoing Work It Is A General Practice To Obtain Bills/Settlement Receipts Only On Finalization Of The Work, The Ld. Ao Has Arbitrarily Rejected The Same.

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 16.04.2021. The grounds of appeal are as under: - “1. Because, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in fact and in law in confirming the disallowance made by Assessing Officer Rs. 60,20,000/- as building expenditure