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.

section 40A(3). On the date fixed for compliance, neither was any request made nor was any submission received. Accordingly, the ld. AO made the disallowances and added the same to the income of the assessee. 5

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

section 40A of the Act. 8. BECAUSE while upholding the addition of Rs.27,34,800/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act, the ld. "CIT(A)" has omitted to consider various case authorities relied upon by the assesse. 9. BECAUSE the order passed by the ld. "CIT(A)" is based on presumption, surmises and conjectures and without considering the facts

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)

5. The facts of the case are that the assessee company filed a return of income on 30.10.2018 which was processed under section 143(1)(a) vide order dated 2.10.2019 at a total income of Rs. 76,82,700/- by making the following adjustments:- i. Inconsistency in provision of payment of gratuity under section 40A

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)

5. The facts of the case are that the assessee company filed a return of income on 30.10.2018 which was processed under section 143(1)(a) vide order dated 2.10.2019 at a total income of Rs. 76,82,700/- by making the following adjustments:- i. Inconsistency in provision of payment of gratuity under section 40A

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

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, where no banking facilities were available, about which there was no dispute whatsoever; (b) such payments

GURDAS MAL ARORA,KANPUR vs. THE A O CIRCLE-1(2)(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshragurdas Mal Arora V. The Assessing Officer, 21/L/4, Daboli, Circle-1(2)(1) Kanpur. 16/69, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Afepm4342J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit-Dr O R D E R

disallowing part of the salary paid by the assessee to persons specified u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The relevant portion of the assessment order is reproduced as under: - Page 3 of 35 Page 4 of 35 Page 5 of 35 Page 6 of 35 Page 7 of 35 (B.1) The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid additions

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)

section 40a(ia), he disallowed the expenditure of Rs.4,02,44,816/- and added the same back to the income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the said assessment, the assessee went in appeal to the ld. CIT(A)-2, Kanpur. The ld. CIT(A), Kanpur passed a short order in which he pointed 5

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

5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance made by AO on account of Directors Remuneration of Rs.2,40,000/-. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the disallowance made by AO on account of festival expenses of Rs.2,62,658/-. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance made

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

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

5. The CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.8,78,412/- made on account of disallowance of excessive payment to M/s Prag Precision Tools under the provision of Section 40A

BADRI PRASAD VISHWA NATH JEWELS,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-2, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowing purchases amounting to Rs.2,54,52,515/- by applying the provisions of section 40A(3) of Income-tax Act. 5

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

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 40A(3) being cash payment exceeding Rs. 10,000/- against certain head of expenses and on other side estimated the profit @11%. The ld. CIT(A) on one side deleted the estimated profit addition but sustained the addition on account of expenses on which tax was not deducted in tune of Rs. 9,65,000/-. That since

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

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 40A(3) being cash payment exceeding Rs. 10,000/- against certain head of expenses and on other side estimated the profit @11%. The ld. CIT(A) on one side deleted the estimated profit addition but sustained the addition on account of expenses on which tax was not deducted in tune of Rs. 9,65,000/-. That since

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 40A(3) being cash payment exceeding Rs. 10,000/- against certain head of expenses and on other side estimated the profit @11%. The ld. CIT(A) on one side deleted the estimated profit addition but sustained the addition on account of expenses on which tax was not deducted in tune of Rs. 9,65,000/-. That since

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

5. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in disallowing cash payments amounting to Rs.62,41,644/- under the provisions of Section 40A

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

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

5 A.Y. 2018-19 G.S. Express Pvt. Ltd. expenses of sites had been recorded, there were various expenditures that were liable to be disallowed on account of violation of section 40A

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

5. Fourth aspect of this issue is regarding reasonable rate of interest u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act. In the impugned order the Assessing Officer has held 18% rate of interest as reasonable. Appellant's contention is that the Assessing Officer was not justified to hold that the reasonable rate of Interest in cases covered by section

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

section 40A(3) being cash payment exceeding Rs.10,000/-\nagainst certain head of expenses and on other side estimated the profit\n@11%.\nThe ld. CIT(A) on one side deleted the estimated profit addition but\nsustained the addition on account of expenses on which tax was not\ndeducted in tune of Rs.9,65,000/-.\nThat since