M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. J/DCIT-CC,, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

1) Addition of Rs.79,00,000/- made u/s 68 on account of treatment of Unsecured Loan as unexplained sum. (ii) Addition of Rs.2,37,000/- made u/s 69C on account of estimated commission on alleged unexplained sum. (iii) Disallowance of Rs.17,25,096/-made u/s 37 on account of disallowance of interest on unsecured loan. 6. BECAUSE on the facts

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

1) Addition of Rs.79,00,000/- made u/s 68 on account of treatment of Unsecured Loan as unexplained sum. (ii) Addition of Rs.2,37,000/- made u/s 69C on account of estimated commission on alleged unexplained sum. (iii) Disallowance of Rs.17,25,096/-made u/s 37 on account of disallowance of interest on unsecured loan. 6. BECAUSE on the facts

PREM CHAND YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, LUCKNOW - NEW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Prem Chand Yadav V. The Acit-1 1/374, Sector 1 Lucknow Gomti Nagar Extension Gomti Nagar, Lucknow Pan:Abqpy1283Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Dr Preeti Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 02 07 2024 O R D E R

1. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution and thereby confirming the addition made by the Ld Assessing Officer. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the said dismissal of appeal is wrong and bad in law and it is prayed that the order

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

In the result, appeals vide I

251 of the IT Act, 1961 by directing the Assessing Officer to verify the claim made by the assessee u/s 80IA which amounts to setting aside the issue which is not permissible as per provisions of the aforesaid section.\n\n2.\nThe Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the disallowance of Rs.2

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

1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by accepting the computation of claim of deduction u/s 80IA containing the provisions of sub-section (7) of the said section as the claim was not made while filing the return of income. 1.1 The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by accepting the computation of claim of deduction u/s 80IA containing the provisions of sub-section (7) of the said section as the claim was not made while filing the return of income. 1.1 The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts

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

1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by accepting the computation of claim of deduction u/s 80IA containing the provisions of sub-section (7) of the said section as the claim was not made while filing the return of income. 1.1 The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by accepting the computation of claim of deduction u/s 80IA containing the provisions of sub-section (7) of the said section as the claim was not made while filing the return of income. 1.1 The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(4), RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Bareilly V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2472C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Amritsar V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs4654E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Kanpur(I) V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2468Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Guwahati V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2462E (Appellant) (Respondent)

1, New Delhi, i.e., the Assessing Officer of SICCL had, in scrutiny assessment, accepted the transfer of WIP by SICCL to the assessee during Financial Year 2010 – 11, and had added notional profit on the said transfer, by virtue of order dated 20.11.14, passed under sections 143 (3)/142 (2A) of the Act, subsequent to special audit

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

IBRAHIM INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoorassessment Year 2007-08 Ibrahim International Ltd. Earlier Acit-3, Vs. Kanpur Known As Ibrahim International Trading Co., 40/121, Hospital Road Parade, Kanpur 208001 Pan – Aaafi 9671F (Appellant) (Respondent)

1) to bring the escapement of income to tax in the hands of the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that such direction is beyond the subject matter of appeal and was not warranted as the ld. CIT(A) had to decide the issues before him and reliance in this respect was placed on a decision of Lucknow Bench

SHASHI INFRA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ITO, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Shashi Infra V. The Constructions Pvt Ltd Addl/Joint/Deputy/Asstt/Income 328B, 5Th Lane Rajendra Tax Officer, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226004. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Tan/Pan:Aaucs5802M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

68 of the Act. He therefore, recorded his satisfaction that the Income to the tune of Rs. 14.76 crores had escaped assessment and that this was due to the assessee having failed to disclose truly and fully all facts. 8. Section 147 of the Act provides inter-alia that if the Assessing Officer has the reason to believe that

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, 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

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

ARYAVART BANK,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank, Vs. Dcit-Range 1, (Successor To Erstwhile Allahabad U.P. Lucknow Gramin Bank), Head Office, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Nbcc Commercial Complex, Vardan Khand, Gomti Nagar Extension, Lucknow Pan: Aaaju0568R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. C. Naresh, Fca Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer That Were Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 On 30.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Not Granting Opportunity To The Appellant Bank To Present The Case Through Video Conferencing As Specified Under Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2020 Provided U/S. 250(68) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"). The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Be Directed To Grant Personal Hearing Through Video Conferencing In The Interest Of Justice. Without Prejudice To The Above 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Proviso To Section 251(1)(A) & Setting Aside The Order To Ao Without Appreciating That The Order Was Not Passed U/S 144. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Din Was Issued In The Name Of Non-Existing Entity & Hence The Order Passed Is Invalid. Without Prejudice To The Above

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A), NFAC erred in not granting opportunity to the Appellant Bank to present the case through video conferencing as specified under faceless appeal scheme, 2020 provided u/s. 250(68) of the Income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR, KANPUR vs. SHRI MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

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

1 pertains to disallowance of Rs. 87,34,231/- of Commission Paid that was decided in favour of appellant on the basis of decision taken in assessee's own appeal for the A.Y 2012-13 & 2014-15 in appeal number CIT(A)-IKnp/10048/2017- 18 dt 05-12-2017; CIT(A)-I Knp/10271/2016-17 dated 07.12.2017 respectively. Similarly ground

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

251 in such a manner which is contrary to the directions given by Pr. CIT in the order u/s 263 while the Assessing Officer has passed order u/s 143(3)/263 as per provisions of law and in accordance with the directions given by Pr. CIT in the order u/s 263 and such action of CIT(A) has become prejudicial

SHIVA NEETI DEVELOPERS,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2014-15 Shiva Neeti Developers V. The Income Tax Officer 3A/185, Azad Nagar Ward 3(4) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Abqfs8644D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.8.2017 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Kanpur For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

68,162/-. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has not submitted online audit report in the prescribed Form No.10CCB for the year under consideration. The assessee had furnished the audit report in Form No.10CCB manually. For want of submitting the audit report electronically, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80IB

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

1,59,98,27,836/- which works out at Rs. 11,19,87,949/-. Since the appellant has shown income from business at Rs. 10,07,00,526/-, thus, the difference in profit works out at Rs. 1,12,87,423/-. Thus, the addition to the tune of Rs. 1,27,86,690/- (Rs. 1