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

reassessment proceeding covered by provision of section 147 to 151 where time for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) was left. Since the case of the assessee has already been considered as search case by Revenue in AY 2019-20 & AY 2020-21 while issuing notice u/s 148 directly without compliance of u/s 148A proceedings therefore

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

reassessment proceeding covered by provision of section 147 to 151 where time for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) was left. Since the case of the assessee has already been considered as search case by Revenue in AY 2019-20 & AY 2020-21 while issuing notice u/s 148 directly without compliance of u/s 148A proceedings therefore

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

reassessment proceeding covered by provision of section 147 to 151 where time for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) was left. Since the case of the assessee has already been considered as search case by Revenue in AY 2019-20 & AY 2020-21 while issuing notice u/s 148 directly without compliance of u/s 148A proceedings therefore

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)

u/s 147 of the Act. 03. That the order of Ld. CIT(A) being erroneous in law and on facts needs to be vacated and the order of the Assessing Officer be restored. 04.That the Revenue craves leave to add or amend any one or more of the grounds of the appeal as stated above as and when need

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

40a(a) amounting Rs.52,58,848/- and addition u/s 69C as unexplained expenditures Rs.4,09,925/- during the period 03.03.2015 to 03.07.2015 which relates two financial years, there was no reason AO to disallow, and for the CIT(A) to set aside for fresh reassessment of the same. I.T.A. No.411/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 3 6. Because on facts

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

u/s 80G to the extent of \ndonation of Rs.9,00,000/- out of Rs.14,06,000/- allowed part relief to the \nextent of Rs.6,00,000/-. \n5. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while not \n"\n306 \n", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee is a government contractor engaged in the business of construction of roads