M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. D/ACIT-1,CENTRAL-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

80C to Section 80U of the Act shall be allowed from his ‘gross total income’. Sub-section (2) of Section 80A of the Act provides that the aggregate amount of the deductions under Chapter VI-A shall not exceed the ‘gross total income’ of the Assessee. We are in agreement with the Appellate Authority that Section 80AB

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUCKNOW, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW vs. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., VIBHUTI KHAND GOMTI NAGAR LKO

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

80C to Section 80U of the Act shall be allowed from his ‘gross total income’. Sub-section (2) of Section 80A of the Act provides that the aggregate amount of the deductions under Chapter VI-A shall not exceed the ‘gross total income’ of the Assessee. We are in agreement with the Appellate Authority that Section 80AB

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

80C to Section 80U of the Act shall be allowed from his ‘gross total income’. Sub-section (2) of Section 80A of the Act provides that the aggregate amount of the deductions under Chapter VI-A shall not exceed the ‘gross total income’ of the Assessee. We are in agreement with the Appellate Authority that Section 80AB

DARSHANA DAVE,KANPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(5), KANPUR, DCIT, CPC

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Darshana Dave V. The Ito 14/75, Civil Lines Ward 1(3)(5) Kanpur (U.P) Kanpur Tan/Pan:Ahepd2111L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 07.02.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 14.09.2017, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.7,91,625/-, Claiming Long Term Capital Loss Of Rs.8,69,268/-. The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bangalore Processed The Return Of The Assessee Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) & Passed An Order Dated 11.01.2019, Computing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.34,46,712/-, Thereby Raising A Demand Of Rs.9,59,106/- As Against The Refund Of Rs.39,250/- Computed By The Assessee. Against This Order, The Assessee Filed

section 80C of the Act and, therefore, whatever amount was received by the assessee was the actual refund of the amount invested by the assessee earlier along with bonus, which had been credited to the Life Insurance Policies from time to time. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the Ld. First Appellate Authority had wrongly disallowed

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

disallowances of expenses\nwhile invoking provision of section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is\nestimated.\n\n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining deduction addition u/s 80G of the extent to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- out of Rs.14,06,000/- allowed part relief to the\nextent of Rs.6

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE- 4(3), KANPUR

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta V. Income Tax Officer 4(3) Sampriti-2, Flat No.D Kanpur 4Th Floor, Brajanathchak Haldia Township, Haldia West Bengal Tan/Pan:Annpg0483B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21 02 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 02 2019

disallowing the assessee’s claim under section 80C of the Act, in the absence of evidence. The assessment order has been

SMT. NIRMALA NIGAM,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Nirmala Nigam V. Income Tax Officer 3(5) 104/102, P. Road Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Afcpn4993C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20 02 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 02 2019

disallowance of deduction of Rs. 1,00,000/-claimed under section 80C of the "Act" during the course of assessment

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

80C. However, CIT(A) did not allow such deduction and sustained the disallowances of Rs. 1,50,000/- which liable to be deleted considering the peculiar facts of the case and related law. Issue No. 9 – AY 2020-21 Addition u/s 68 Gift from father Sh. S.N. PandeyRs. 1,00,000/- The Ld. AO made addition

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

80C. However, CIT(A) did not allow such deduction and sustained the disallowances of Rs. 1,50,000/- which liable to be deleted considering the peculiar facts of the case and related law. Issue No. 9 – AY 2020-21 Addition u/s 68 Gift from father Sh. S.N. PandeyRs. 1,00,000/- The Ld. AO made addition

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

80C. However, CIT(A) did not allow such deduction and sustained the disallowances of Rs. 1,50,000/- which liable to be deleted considering the peculiar facts of the case and related law. Issue No. 9 – AY 2020-21 Addition u/s 68 Gift from father Sh. S.N. PandeyRs. 1,00,000/- The Ld. AO made addition

GEETA SHARMA,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. ITO-1(4), SHAHJAHANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 Geeta Sharma V. Income Tax Officer 1(4) C/O M/S Neeraj Foods Trading Shahjahanpur Company Moh. Matani Shahjahanpur Tan/Pan:Beeps6201L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07 08 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.4.2024, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee E-Filed Her Return Of Income In Itr-3 On 31.10.2018, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,69,770/- After Claiming Deduction Under Section 80C & 80Tta Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) At Rs.1,53,970/- Out Of Gross Total Income Shown At Rs.7,23,739/- Consisting Of Profits & Gains From Business At Rs.7,19,769/- & Income From Other Sources At Rs.3,970/-. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Rs.17,97,270/- By Making Disallowance Of Rs.2,37,412/- On Account Of Interest Paid

section 80C & 80TTA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) at Rs.1,53,970/- out of gross total income shown at Rs.7,23,739/- consisting of profits and gains from business at Rs.7,19,769/- and income from other sources at Rs.3,970/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and the total income of the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA UP

disallowances of expenses\non provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is estimated.\n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,000/- out of total addition of Rs.14,06,000/- out\nof donation deduction u/s 80G to the extent of extent of Rs.6

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

disallowances of expenses \nwhile invoking provision of section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is \nestimated. \n\n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while \nsustaining the addition deduction claimed u/s 80G of the extent of \ndonation of Rs.1,50,000/- out of Rs.14,06,000/- allowed part relief to the \nextent