KWALITY RESTAURANT,KANPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 Kwality Restaurant V. The Cit(A) 16/97, The Mall Delhi Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaafk8712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.9.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 115 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Which Is Also Supported By An Affidavit. 3. I Have Gone Through The Application For Condonation Of Delay As Well As The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee & Heard The Contention Of The Ld. D.R. On The Issue Of Condonation Of Delay. The Ld. D.R. Has Objected To The Condonatiion Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Is Shifting The Blame Of Delay On Its Counsel. 4. Having Considered The Reasons Explained By The Assessee In The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That The Assessee Has Explained The Cause Of Delay That Due To An Oversight Of The Counsel Of The Assessee, Necessary Steps For Filing

disallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too starts with a non-obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head "Profits and Gains of Business and Profession". Likewise, Section 40A(2) opens with a non- obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible

M/S GULATI EXTRUSIONS PVT. LTD,KANPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Gulati Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit 17-A, Co-Operative Industrial Circle 2(1)(1) Estate Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaacg5008M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1.3.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of Five Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Director Of The Assessee Company Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Stating Therein That The Papers Required For Filing The Appeal Was Sent Through Speed Post On 27.4.2021 Well Within The Limitation Period, However The Same Was Delivered By The Postal Authorities In The Office Of The Tribunal On 5.5.2021. It Was Further Stated That Since The Nominal Delay Of Five Days Was Due To Late Delivery Of The Dak By The Postal Authorities, The Delay May Be Condoned & The Appeal Be Admitted For Hearing. Having Carefully Perused The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That There Was Sufficient Cause For The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. Accordingly, The Delay Of 5 Days Is Condoned & Admit This Appeal For Hearing.

disallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too starts with a non-obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head "Profits and Gains of Business and Profession". Likewise, Section 40A(2) opens with a non- obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible

M/S RAJ KUMAR SINGH & CO.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 40A (2) (b) of the Act. In the cases of Creditors covered u/s 40A (2) (b) I hold that interest rate of 20% is reasonable as loans given by them to the appellant are in reality not the unsecured loans i.e. because the partners of the borrowing firm are related to them and hence their loans are not that

FUTURE PHARMA PVT.LTD,KANPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, KANPUR

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

Section 40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In view of the facts\nmentioned above, it is clear that the assessment order passed by AO is\nerroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly,\nin exercise of the power u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961 I set aside the order\npassed

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)

B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2017-18 Mohd. Ayaz, vs. The DCIT, 262/81/2 Katara Azam Beg, Range-4, Lucknow Billochpura, Lucknow-226004 PAN:AIRPA6185H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue by: Sh. Vachaspati, CIT DR Date of hearing: 21.05.2025 Date of pronouncement

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S PRAG INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Videshri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 40A(2) ignoring the fact that the AO has made the addition in absence of any reason provided by the assessee for the excess payment. 6. The CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.3,90,698/- made on account of disallowance of bad debt written off without appreciating the fact that

HARSAHAIMAL SHIAMLAL JEWELLERS PVIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), BAREILLY

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Harsahaimal Shiamlal Jewellers Shri Vimalendu Verma, Private Limited, 148, Civil Lines, Vs. Pcit (Central), Lucknow, U.P. Bareilly, U.P.-243001 Pan:Aacch3785L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Act, Passed By The Ld. Pcit, Central ,Lucknow On 17.02.2022, Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer, Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act On 29.07.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred, Are As Under:-

disallowance of Rs.2,50,000/- on this account and added the same to the returned income of the assessee. The ld. PCIT called for the case records and after perusal of the same, came to the conclusion that the assessment under section 143(3) of the A.Y. 2017-18 Harsahaimal Shiamlal Jewellers P. Ltd. Income Tax Act that was done

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

2) the said observations were made by the Id. CIT(A) on account of addition made under section 40A(3), as on account of disallowance of electricity expenses aggregating Rs.3,18,342/-, without considering the fact that as enumerated below : I.T.A. No.323/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2020-21 3 (a) electricity Expenses had been paid by appellant, in cash at village Asroga

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

disallowances of expenses on\nnon adherence of TDS provision under section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is\nestimated.\n\n9. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition of Rs.12,01,000/- computed addition of Rs.61,31,000/- \nagainst actual consideration of Rs.31

GURU KRIPA ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PR. CIT, , BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the\nclaim;\n(c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction\nor instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or\n(d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision\nwhich is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional

M/S ALLIANCE BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Alliance Builders & Asst.Commissioner Of V. Contractors Ltd Income Tax, Central Circle-2 C/O 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Allen Ganj, Kanpur. Pan:Aaeca8217A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 11 2024 O R D E R

40a(ia) of the Act. 11. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance made by AO on account of battery and mobile of Rs.50,800/-. 12. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IB(10) of the income tax Act, 1961. 13. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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)

B) of the Audit report and challenged in the appeal before him, had rightly been made under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. 9. The ld. CIT(A) also held that various judicial pronouncements on the subject that had held that no such prima facie adjustment could be made under section 143(1)(a), were with respect

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)

B) of the Audit report and challenged in the appeal before him, had rightly been made under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. 9. The ld. CIT(A) also held that various judicial pronouncements on the subject that had held that no such prima facie adjustment could be made under section 143(1)(a), were with respect

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

2)(vii)(b)", "145(3)", "40A(3)", "80G", "54F"], "issues": "The primary issues revolve around the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 and the validity of approvals granted under Section 153D. Additionally, disputes exist regarding the estimation of net profit rates, disallowances

SEEMA,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(4), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Seema, Vs. Income Tax Officer-4(4), 349/276, Suppa House, Bazar Lucknow New Khala, Lucknow-226004 Pan:Ftyps6815K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 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 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 14.09.2023, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee, Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3), On 11.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order U/S 250 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals) Nfac Was Passed Without Providing Proper Opportunity To The Appellant, Which Is Against The Principles Of Natural Justice & Therefore, The Same Is Void Ab- Initio & Bad In Law. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Confirming The Disallowance Made By The Ld Assessing Officer U/S 40(A)(3) Of The Act Amounting To Rs 3,01,36,682/- Without Appreciating The Material On Record & The Facts Of The Case. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Confirming The Disallowance Under Section 40A(3) Without Giving Due Weightage To The Totality Of The Circumstances & Considerations Of Business Expediency Existing In The Present Case As Contemplated In Section 40A(3) Of The Act.

disallowance under Section 40A(3) without giving due weightage to the totality of the circumstances and considerations of business expediency existing in the present case as contemplated in Section 40A(3) of the Act. 1 A.Y. 2016-17 Seema 4. That the order passed by the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC is against merits, circumstances and legal aspects

GENUS POWER INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITTED,NOIDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTERAL), LUCKNOW

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

b the\ncompetent authority then subsequent renewal/communication of such as\napproval in prescribed form is not relevant and what is relevant to decide\nthe entitlement of deduction is existence of such facility (Emphasis\nsupplied) The Assessing Officer in the online notice u/s 142(1) dated\n28.11.2019 asked for the following details Large amount allowable as\ndeduction claimed in schedule

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

40A(3)", "80C", "80G", "54F", "68", "69A", "56(2)(vii)(b)"], "issues": "The primary issue was the validity of assessment orders passed in search cases where the AO allegedly did not properly apply for approval under section 153D of the Act. Other issues involved the disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KANPUR vs. M.K.U PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

2 CO No.23/LKW/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 M.K.U. Pvt. Ltd. assessee’s condonation petition and affidavit, the delay in filing the cross objection is condoned. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return of income on 30.09.2011 declaring a book profit of Rs.5,20,24,121/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment under section