NEW SUMERPUR GOLDEN TRANSPORT,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2010-11 New Sumerpur Golden Transport V. Income Tax Officer 2(3) 76/164, Halsey Road Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aagfn4235L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19 02 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 02 2019

disallowance of Rs.5,05,955/-, holding that the assessee had violated ITA No.579/LKW/2017 Page 4 of 8 the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, qua such expenditure claimed. The ld. CIT(A), by virtue of the impugned order dated 18/8/2017, has dismissed the assessee’s appeal. 4. Apropos ground

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. COMMERCIAL ENGINEERS & BODY BUILDERS CO. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

40A(2) lays down as under: ITA No.657 & 658/LKW/2018 Page 9 of 24 “(2) (a) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment has been or is to be made to any person referred to in clause (b) of this sub-section, and the Assessing Officer is of opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. COMMERCIAL ENGINEERS & BODY BUILDERS CO. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

40A(2) lays down as under: ITA No.657 & 658/LKW/2018 Page 9 of 24 “(2) (a) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment has been or is to be made to any person referred to in clause (b) of this sub-section, and the Assessing Officer is of opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having

PREM MANOHAR GUPTA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KANPUR

In the result, appeal in I

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

5 40A(2)(b). Besides the above disallowance, certain other disallowances were made. The assessee filed appeal before CIT(A), who vide order dated 29/06/2016 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee but upheld the disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Besides upholding the disallowance, the learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to make further disallowance

PREM MANOHAR GUPTA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KANPUR

In the result, appeal in I

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

5 40A(2)(b). Besides the above disallowance, certain other disallowances were made. The assessee filed appeal before CIT(A), who vide order dated 29/06/2016 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee but upheld the disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Besides upholding the disallowance, the learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to make further disallowance

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

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 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

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

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