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

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

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 of Rs.6,00,000/-. \n\n5. Because

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

Reassessment Proceeding.\ndt. 05.09.2023, 08.02.2024, 11.03.2024, 16.03.2024,\n15.03.2024\n6. Original Assessment Order u/s 143(3) dt. 23.04.2021 and\nCIT(A) order u/s 250 dt. 25.06.2024\n7. Assessment Order u/s 147 dt. 28.03.2024\n8. Copy of Form-35\n9. Copy of Replies filed before CIT(A)-3, Lucknow dt.\n07.01.2025\n10. Copy of CIT(A)-3, Lucknow Order

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)

3), would not render the ld. AO powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings. The ld. AO also pointed out that the re-assessment proceedings had not been finalized and due opportunity would be provided to the assessee in the case. He also rejected the second set of objections filed by the assessee regarding the issuance of notice beyond time, pointing

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

sections": ["147", "148", "153A", "153D", "56(2)(vii)(b)", "145(3)", "40A(3)", "80G", "54F"], "issues": "The primary issues revolve around the validity of reassessment

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

reassessment, as the case may be. Is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall he extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly.’ 7. Further clause (iii) of Explanation to section 153 of the Act deals with the exclusion of period given in the order for getting the accounts audited

ARCHANA GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-6-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

Section 148A w.e.f. 01.04.2021 of the Act which is not permissible, this second notice is issued without disposal of first notice dated 20.04.2021 the reassessment framed be quashed but the ld. CIT(A) wrongly set aside the case ignoring the facts of the case and grounds and additional grounds submitted before him. 3. Because the first Notice