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)

40A(7) of Rs.49,17,636/- and for delayed payment of ESI / EPF dues of Rs. Rs. 29,16,547/-. It was submitted that the payment/deposit of ESI / EPF was made beyond the due dates as prescribed under the respective Acts but much before the filing of the income tax return. Further, it was submitted that vide order dated

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)

40A(7) of Rs.49,17,636/- and for delayed payment of ESI / EPF dues of Rs. Rs. 29,16,547/-. It was submitted that the payment/deposit of ESI / EPF was made beyond the due dates as prescribed under the respective Acts but much before the filing of the income tax return. Further, it was submitted that vide order dated

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 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

9. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance made by AO on account of travelling expenses of Rs.2,91,960/-. 10. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance made by AO on account of payment made to contractor by provision of section 40a

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

disallowances. Hence, addition of Rs. 9,22,200/- may not be sustained. Issue No. 12 – AY 2021-22 Addition due to violate the provision of section 40A

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

disallowances. Hence, addition of Rs. 9,22,200/- may not be sustained. Issue No. 12 – AY 2021-22 Addition due to violate the provision of section 40A

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

disallowances. Hence, addition of Rs. 9,22,200/- may not be sustained. Issue No. 12 – AY 2021-22 Addition due to violate the provision of section 40A

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

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

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

40A(2)(b) and\nTDS u/s.194H/194), if any, which were examined by the AO, thus to say\nthat the AO failed to examine the same, would be incorrect, the order\npassed by the PCIT be quashed.\n8. Because complete details were furnished as raised in the questionnaire\nas issued to the notice issued u/s 142(1) and the AO having

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

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

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. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing assessment order which is contrary to the facts and law.” Additional Grounds of Appeal “1. That the notice

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

disallowance under section 40A(2) of the Act, amounting to Rs.8,78,412/- out of payments made to Prag Precision Tools. In the impugned appellate order, the learned CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid addition. The learned CIT(A) has dealt with this issue in paragraphs 9

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FAIZABAD vs. SMT. SARITA NAINWANI, PROP. M/S. BHOLA PHARMA, FAIZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2011-12 The Dy. Cit V. Smt. Sarita Nainwani Circle, Faizabad Prop. M/S Bhola Pharma 3/2/18, Mukeri Tola Faizabad Tan/Pan:Ahtpn1830B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Sarita Nainwani V. The Income Tax Officer-Ii Prop. M/S Bhola Pharma Faizabad 3/2/18, Mukeri Tola Faizabad Tan/Pan:Ahtpn1830B (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Assessee By : Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 25 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 08 2022 O R D E R

40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, has contended that the appeal of the Department is not maintainable for tax effect. The computation of the tax effect has been filed, according to which, the computation is as below: Total income assessed by the A.O. Rs.2,50,81,470.00 Relief

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

9 the partnership in which all the partners would have interest in proportion to their share in the joint venture of the business of partnership. The person who brought it in would, therefore, not be able to claim or exercise any exclusive right over any property which he had brought in, much less over any other partnership property. He would

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:-

9 The Learned PCIT, Bareilly has further ignored that in view of the provisions of explanation 2 of section 263, it is incumbent to point out what more enquiries would the AO ought to have conducted. Grounds No. 10 That the Learned PCIT, Bareilly has also failed to appreciate that, u/s 263 of the Act, an order of assessment cannot

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

9 – AY 2020-21\nAddition u/s 68 Gift from father Sh. S.N. PandeyRs.1,00,000/-\nThe Ld. AO made addition of Rs.1,00,000/- being gift received by\nAppellant from his father Shri Surya Narayan Pandey only on assumption\nand surmise ignoring the documents placed on record.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs.1,00,000/- being

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

40A(3), 40(a)(i), 269SS and therefore, it was difficult to merge the data of all the sites in order to arrive at the final position, as a result of the search action, in due course of time. It was submitted that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and therefore the delay in filing