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

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s\n54F of the Act, 1961 on account of investment in new house property situated at\nLucknow without appreciating that the assessee had ownership of more than\nthree properties other than the new investment in house property situated at\nLucknow at the time of transfer of property that violates the provisions of section 54F\nof Income

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)

section 40A(3) could not be ruled out. Therefore, he proposed to treat10% of the total purchase of Rs.66,89,75,490/- as cash purchase exceeding Rs.20,000/-. This total came to Rs.6,68,97,549/- and he proposed to disallow

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

75,589/- on account of investments in capital assets, the ld. CIT DR relied upon the orders of the ld. CIT(A). With regard to the addition of Rs.5,59,55,800/- under section 68 and addition of Rs.6,77,19,543/- by way of adhoc disallowances

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

75,589/- on account of investments in capital assets, the ld. CIT DR relied upon the orders of the ld. CIT(A). With regard to the addition of Rs.5,59,55,800/- under section 68 and addition of Rs. 6,77,19,543/- by way of adhoc disallowances

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 The Asstt. Commissioner V. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd Of Income Tax B-9, Vibhuti Khand Central Circle Ii Gomti Nagar Lucnow Lucknow Pan:Aadca5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.19/Lkw/2017 [In Ita No.66/Lkw/2017] Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-9, Vibhuti Khand Income Tax Gomti Nagar Central Circle Ii Lucknow Lucnow Pan:Aadca5639H (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the said disallowance vide paras 14.1 to 14.3 of his order, observing as under: “14.1 Ground of appeal No. 6 (Disallowance of Rs.675950/- u/s 40(a)(ia)) AO noted that appellant had paid a sum of Rs.6,75

METAL CANS AND CLOSURES PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ACIT-5, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2014-15 Metal Cans & Closures Pvt. Asstt. Commissioner Of V. Ltd. Income Tax-5 Plot No.23, Panki Indus. Area, Vaibhav Bhawan, Site-1, Panki,Kanpur-208022. 15/295-A, Civil Lines, Kanpur-208001. Pan:Aaicm2233Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 11 2024 O R D E R

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, overlooking that necessary evidence and confirmation was filed, the disallowance being contrary to facts and provisions of law the same be deleted.” 2. Grounds no. 1 to 4 relates to adhoc disallowance of out of various expenses treating them as personal. 3. The facts giving rise to the grounds of appeal are that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance of labour cess under section 43B of the Act which is Rs. 3,68,33,045/- as per profit and loss account may be restricted to the amount paid by the due date of filing of return of income as per the said provisions. The case relied upon by the AO does not come into the picture

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). In view of these facts, this ground of appeal is dismissed. Ground C & D: Disallowance of Bank Guarantee of Rs.1,75

NEETA TIWARI,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-4(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2022-23 Neeta Tiwari V. The Ito-4(1) A-6, South City Lucknow - New Ambedkar University Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Afopt6232J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 11 2024 O R D E R

75,960/-. The return was processed by the Central Processing Centre (CPC) under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’), assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.44,27,790/- after making an addition of Rs.19,51,830/- by invoking the ITA No.493/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 6 provisions of section

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

75,195/- u/s 115JB as deemed income suggesting that on the income determined u/s 115JB of the Act was found to higher than the tax worked out on the income determined under the normal provisions of the Act. 4. Vide Para (2) of the notice under section 142(1) dated 26.09.2013, it was specifically required to furnish copy of Audit

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

75 of the said Act. Considering all these sections, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there could not be said to be any profit. Unless there was a profit motive, it cannot be said that an entity was carrying on any trade, commerce or business. 3.11. We further find that in case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samity (supra

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

75 of the said Act. Considering all these sections, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there could not be said to be any profit. Unless there was a profit motive, it cannot be said that an entity was carrying on any trade, commerce or business. 3.11. We further find that in case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samity (supra

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-APPEAL, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

75 of the said Act. Considering all these sections, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there could not be said to be any profit. Unless there was a profit motive, it cannot be said that an entity was carrying on any trade, commerce or business. 3.11. We further find that in case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samity (supra

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

75 of the said Act. Considering all these sections, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there could not be said to be any profit. Unless there was a profit motive, it cannot be said that an entity was carrying on any trade, commerce or business. 3.11. We further find that in case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samity (supra

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

ACIT CIRCLE 3, LUCKNOW vs. RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 112 To 114/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2015-16 To 2017-18 Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Vs. Dcit Bank Ltd P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. 226001. Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan:Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) A.Y.2016-17 Acit Circle-3 Vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh Ltd Kar Bhawan, Lucknow Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan: Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Addl. Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Four Appeals Have Been Have Been Filed For The Assessment Years 2015 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18 By The Assessee & Revenue Ssessee & Revenue Against The Respective Orders Of The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024. While The Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, The Revenue 18, The Revenue

section 14A of the Act. It was further submitted that the assessee had total interest fee fund of Rs.25,20,31,732/- and therefore, the investment made in non-SLR Investment of Rs.13,75,00,000/-, was entirely out of its own resources and therefore there was no reason for making disallowance

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 14A of the Act. It was further submitted that the assessee had total interest fee fund of Rs.25,20,31,732/- and therefore, the investment made in non-SLR Investment of Rs.13,75,00,000/-, was entirely out of its own resources and therefore there was no reason for making disallowance

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

disallowing the exemption u/s 11, 12 and 13 read with first Proviso to section 2(15) on the ground that the appellant is hit by the provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts