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

In the result appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.743 & 746/Lkw/2024 & Ita No. 30/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Vs. Assessing Officer, Nfac Welfare, Lucknow Pan:Aaatu0957A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 23.10.2024, 28.10.2024 & 2.01.2024 In The Appeals Preferred Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3), The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aac(1) & The Penalty Order Under Section 270A. The Grounds Of Appeal In These Three Appeals Are As Under:-

disallowance of 30% of the same accordingly added back a sum of Rs. 1,65,19,038/-. vii. The ld. AO also observed that there was delayed payment of Employees contribution to Provident Fund amounting to Rs. 1,62,63,564/- as per the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va). Accordingly, he made an addition

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

270A This discrepancy arises from specific additions and disallowances along with levy of penalty made by the Income Tax Department, based on a best judgment assessment, which is not true. a) An addition of Rs 28,07,400/was made in respect of cash deposit . Actual Facts: The cash transaction referenced above is associated with Bank Account Number

SKYHIGH INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-6(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaand\Nshri, Nikhil Choudhary\Nita No. 242/Lkw/2025\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nskyhigh Infrastructures Pvt\Nltd\Nv.\Ncp-2 Ii Floor, Gomti Plaza,\Nvikas Khand, Gomti Nagar,\Nlucknow-226010.\Nincome Tax Officer-6(1)\Npratyaksh Kar Bhawan,\Nlucknow-226001.\Npan:Aatcs1687B\N(Appellant)\N(Respondent)\Nappellant By:\Nshri P. K. Kapoor, Ca\Nrespondent By:\Nshri Amit Kumar, Dr\Ndate Of Hearing:\N10 06 2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N31 07 2025\Norder\Nper Nikhil Choudhary.:\Nthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of\Nthe Learned Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi\Nu/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, For Short) Dated\N17.01.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of\Nthe Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Assessing\Nofficer U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 28.12.2019. The Grounds Of\Nappeal Are As Under: -\N“1.

270A of the Act without recording proper\nsatisfaction.\n10. BECAUSE on a due consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, the\nld. "CIT(A)" ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to drop the penalty\nproceedings initiated under section 271AAC(1) of the Act.\n11. BEAUSE on a due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case

GURMEET TIMBER STORE,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-4(3), LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2022-23 Gurmeet Timber Store V. The Ito-4(3) 12A, Aishbagh Road Lucknow - New Rajendra Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aalfg7277L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Gurmeet Singh Walia, Fca Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 04 2025 O R D E R

disallowed. However, the assessee did not file any reply. The AO accordingly rejected the books of account under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) and the net profit of the assessee was determined as per provisions of section 44AD of the Act @ 8% of the total credit of Rs.4,11,55,965/-, which

MUKESH KUMAR SINGH,HARDOI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2),, HARDOI-/NFAC

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Mukesh Kumar Singh V. The Income Tax Officer 3 (2) Sadhinawa Uchwal Hardoi-1/Nfac Hardoi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bxkps8596P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.05.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Engaged In The Business Of Recovery Of Loans & Emi. The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.18,40,681/-. Subsequently, The Assessee Revised His Return Of Income On 23.11.2020, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.12,17,600/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason That The "Taxable Income Shown In Revised Return Is Less Than The Taxable Income Shown In The Original Return & Large Refund Has Been Claimed (Business Itr) Reduction Of Income In

sections 270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed ex-parte qua the assessee. ITA No.485/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 5 2.3 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the orders of the AO as well as the NFAC

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT,RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, ita No.164/LKW/2022 stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

sections 270A and 271B of the Act, separately. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority against the addition of Rs.33,49,65,000/- being interest on FDRs, disallowance

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. D.C.I.T. RANGE-6 (JAO), LUCKNOW

In the result, ita No.164/LKW/2022 stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

sections 270A and 271B of the Act, separately. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority against the addition of Rs.33,49,65,000/- being interest on FDRs, disallowance

MR.BHUPENDRA KUMAR TIWARI,GONDA vs. ITO-6(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Ys. 2021-22 Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tiwari, Vs. Ito, P.S. Bhitaree-1, Wazirganj, Ward 6(1) Distt. Gonda Lucknow Pan Agmpt 0366J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024 O R D E R

disallowed for Rs. 1,50,000/-. 4. BECAUSE the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making assessment u/s 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961 as cash was deposited in the bank out of amount received from close relatives for the purpose of land purchase, therefore cash deposited out of amount received from close relatives and friends for the purpose

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD VIKRAMJOT BASTI,VIKRAMJOT vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER BASTI -NEW, INCOME TAX OFFICE BASTI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sahkari Ganna Vikas V. The Income Tax Officer Samiti Ltd. Basti Vikramjot, Basti (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aabas4611B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.12.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912. The Main Activity Of The Assessee Was Marketing Of Sugar Cane Grown By The Cane Growers, Who Were Members Of The Assessee-Society. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 21.03.2018, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,73,170/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee-Society Had Received Commission From Sugar Mills On Supply Of Sugar Cane Of Rs.70,16,032/-, Which Was Claimed As Exempt In Terms Of Section 80P(2)(A)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act

sections 270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. ITA No.486/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 15 2.3 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)_3, Bengaluru

RAM RATAN SINGH PAL,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Ram Ratan Singh Pal V. The Assessment Unit 5C/111, Girdhar Kunj Nfac Sector 5, Vrindavan Colony Telibagh, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ahqpp7018N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, 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 18.01.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 15.01.2021, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.2,81,520/- Under The Head Income From Salary. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & A Refund Of Rs.2,50,510/- Was Created. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income Under Section 139(5) Of The Act On 25.02.2021, Declaring The Same Income Originally Returned, I.E., Rs.2,81,520/-. In The Revised Return Of Income, The Assessee Declared Income From Salary At Rs.2,81,520/- & Income From

270A of the Act may not be initiated for under-reporting of income. In response, the assessee filed reply vide two letters dated 26.07.2022. Not being satisfied with the reply furnished by the assessee in response to the show cause notice, the AO proceeded to complete the assessment under section 144 of the Act and worked out the income

NAND KISHORE SINGH,BARABANKI vs. ASSESSEMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, FACELESS

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Nand Kishore Singh V. Assessment Unit Jarmapur Income Tax Department Post Barauli Malik Lucknow Barabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ataps3227Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Jain, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

270A and 271AAC r.w.s. 274 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee. ITA No.674/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 5 5. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of its appeal by the NFAC

BHAWANI DEVELOPERS,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW-NEW

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid\ndirections

disallowed by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the act and\nadded to the total income of the assessee.\n3.8.6 In view of above stated facts, I am satisfied that the assessee has under reported its\nincome by misreporting. Hence penalty proceedings u/s 270A

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, as the Ld. AO erred in reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because this return of income is filed at address of the assessee at Distt, Raebareli and assessment is made at the address of my Ex-Advocate Mr, Rakesh Mishra. 8. On the facts and In the circumstances

UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

270A of the Act is issued for under reporting and misreporting of\nincome separately.\n(B.1) The assessee's appeal was partly allowed by the learned CIT(A) in\nimpugned appellate order dated 29/03/2024. The learned CIT(A) confirmed\nthe aforesaid addition of Rs.94,13,54,207/-. However, the aforesaid\nadditions of Rs.3,34,64,76,831/- and Rs.2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT\nAND\nSHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)

270A of the Act is issued for under reporting and misreporting of\nincome separately.\n\n(B.1) The assessee's appeal was partly allowed by the learned CIT(A) in\nimpugned appellate order dated 29/03/2024. The learned CIT(A) confirmed\nthe aforesaid addition of Rs.94,13,54,207/-. However, the aforesaid\nadditions of Rs.3,34,64,76,831/- and Rs.2

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. 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