MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

68 of IT Act. On these confirmations filed appellant provided the current and latest address of the lender to the AO whereas AO got the verification done at old addresses in Kolkata by issuing a commission u/s 131(l)(d) to the Kolkata Investigation Wing on 27.02.2018 to submit a report on following points: 1. Identity, genuineness of the transactions

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. M/S MAHENDRA EDUCATIONAL PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is dismissed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 of the I.T. Act on account of cash deposits made by the assessee during demonetization period. On perusal of records, it is found that the I.T.A. No.433/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2017-18 12 Assessing Officer has accepted the books of account; and no defects have been pointed out either by the Assessing Officer or by the learned

GURU KRIPA ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PR. CIT, , BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

166\nТахтап 188. Hence, we have no\nhesitation in quashing the revision order\npassed by the ld.PCIT u/s 263 of the Act\nin the facts and circumstances of the\ninstant case. Accordingly, grounds raised\nby the assesseeare allowed.\n\n5.\nOrder\ndated\n26.03.2025\npassed\nby Hon'ble Income-\ntax\nAppellate\nTribunal, Lucknow\nBench\n"B",\nLucknow, in the\ncase

BHAWANI DEVELOPERS,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW-NEW

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid\ndirections

68 of the Act of Rs.20,25,54,000/-.\n3.2\nVariation-II\n3.2.1 Variation on account of labour charges\n3.2.2 During the year under consideration, the assessee has debited labour charges to\nthe tune of Rs.5,79,26,290/- against the total contract receipts of 7,89,21,744/- in the profit\nand loss account. During the course of assessment

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the\nfact that the assessee failed to provide corroborative evidence for the claimed\n“inadvertent mistake” in recording bank balance, and that the Assessing\nOfficer correctly treated it as a manipulation to justify unexplained credit.\n\nI.T.A. No.399/Lkw/2025, A.Y. 2016-17 (Revenue’s Appeal)\n\n1. Whether on facts and circumstances

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

section of society for \ncommercial area as certain percentage has to be made available for local shops and \nshops for barber, vegetable vendor etc. which are disposed-off through lottery \nsystem. It is this leftover part from 5% of saleable area that is sold though auction. \nFurthermore, the disposal of residential properties is done by an Authority

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

section of society for \ncommercial area as certain percentage has to be made available for local shops and \nshops for barber, vegetable vendor etc. which are disposed-off through lottery \nsystem. It is this leftover part from 5% of saleable area that is sold though auction. \nFurthermore, the disposal of residential properties is done by an Authority

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the fact \nthat the assessee failed to provide corroborative evidence for the claimed \n\"inadvertent mistake\" in recording bank balance, and that the Assessing \nOfficer correctly treated it as a manipulation to justify unexplained credit. \n\nI.T.A. No.399/Lkw/2025, A.Y. 2016-17 (Revenue’s Appeal) \n\n1. Whether on facts

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

68 of the IT Act, 1961 rws 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 leading to double taxation as the cash deposit has already been considered in the return of income. Page 2 of 35 5. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the sale has been made out of the stock available with

ARUN KUMAR MAURYA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68) Reassessment - Procedure - Return in response to Notice u/s 148 - Assessing Officer www.taxguru.in (8 of 13) [ITA-197/2018 must apply his mind and issue Notice u/s 143(2) - Procedure must be followed strictly — Income Tax Act, 1961, ss. 143, 148. It is further submitted that even if the return of income was filed after the issue of notice

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

166 taxmann.com 607 (Gauhati) and Pr. CIT vs. Avantha Realty Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 376 (Calcutta). In these decisions, Hon'ble High Courts have held that the amendment to section 14A of the Income Tax Act, whereby the aforesaid explanation was inserted, is prospective in nature, and not retrospective. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble High Courts

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

166 taxmann.com 607 (Gauhati) and Pr. CIT vs. Avantha Realty Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 376 (Calcutta). In these decisions, Hon'ble High Courts have held that the amendment to section 14A of the Income Tax Act, whereby the aforesaid explanation was inserted, is prospective in nature, and not retrospective. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble High Courts

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

166 taxmann.com 607 (Gauhati) and Pr. CIT vs. Avantha Realty Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 376 (Calcutta). In these decisions, Hon'ble High Courts have held that the amendment to section 14A of the Income Tax Act, whereby the aforesaid explanation was inserted, is prospective in nature, and not retrospective. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble High Courts

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68,111/- on account of cane development expenses, an amount of Rs.13,76,57,437/- u/s 43B of the Act, an addition of Rs.38,52,24,618/- on account of rejection of assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 43B of the Act; an addition of Rs.1,90,36,043/- on account of disallowance of prior period expenses and further addition

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68,111/- on account of cane development expenses, an amount of Rs.13,76,57,437/- u/s 43B of the Act, an addition of Rs.38,52,24,618/- on account of rejection of assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 43B of the Act; an addition of Rs.1,90,36,043/- on account of disallowance of prior period expenses and further addition

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68,111/- on account of cane development expenses, an amount of Rs.13,76,57,437/- u/s 43B of the Act, an addition of Rs.38,52,24,618/- on account of rejection of assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 43B of the Act; an addition of Rs.1,90,36,043/- on account of disallowance of prior period expenses and further addition

U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-VI, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68,111/- on account of cane development expenses, an amount of Rs.13,76,57,437/- u/s 43B of the Act, an addition of Rs.38,52,24,618/- on account of rejection of assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 43B of the Act; an addition of Rs.1,90,36,043/- on account of disallowance of prior period expenses and further addition

DCIT, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68,111/- on account of cane development expenses, an amount of Rs.13,76,57,437/- u/s 43B of the Act, an addition of Rs.38,52,24,618/- on account of rejection of assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 43B of the Act; an addition of Rs.1,90,36,043/- on account of disallowance of prior period expenses and further addition