MADKINI HYDRO POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 4(3), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2018-19 Madkini Hydro Power Private V. The Income Tax Officer 4(3) Limited Lucknow Flat No.4, Ii Floor 3, Scindia House Delhi 110 001 Tan/Pan:Aaecm1420B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalendera Kishore Singh, Adv. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

68 of the Act. The AO passed the order under section 144 read with sections 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act, assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.12,33,19,856/-. 2.1 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under sections 270A, 272A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 147 of the Act. The assessee is supported by authority of various case laws on the issue. Some of the said case laws are as under: New Delhi Television Ltd. V. DCIT 314CTR(SC)17 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “We accordingly allow the appeal by holding that the notice issued to the assessee shows sufficient reasons

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 147 of the Act. The assessee is supported by authority of various case laws on the issue. Some of the said case laws are as under: New Delhi Television Ltd. V. DCIT 314CTR(SC)17 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “We accordingly allow the appeal by holding that the notice issued to the assessee shows sufficient reasons

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 -Revision - Of orders prejudicial to\ninterest of revenue Assessment year 2000-01 Whether merely because\nproper enquiry was not conduced by Assessing Officer, assessment\nprejudicial order would become Whether Held, no conclusion of\nCommissioner under section 263 that order of assessment is prejudicial to\ninterest of revenue is a matter of subjective

MY STYLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-4(5) LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 253(3) of IT Act. As per noting of registry, this I.T.A. No.134/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 3 appeal is time barred by 55 days. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit

LALJI YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

sections": [ "143(3)", "253(3)", "69A", "139(1)", "142(1)", "133(6)", "68", "148", "115BBE", "2(1A)", "56" ], "issues

RAKESH KUMAR JAISWAL,BARABANKI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -5, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act. 3. Because without considering the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by sustaining the addition on account of rejection of books of accounts of the assessee. 4. Because without considering the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

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 and in the circumstances of the case

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

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 and in the circumstances of the case

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

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 and in the circumstances of the case

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

253(3) of IT Act. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned. Being satisfied with the reasons stated in application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal; we condone the delay in filing

SURAIYYA BEGUM,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(3), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being cash deposited during demonetization period without considering the fact that such cash deposits were made out of the past savings and withdrawals of the assessee and her husband. I.T.A. No.748/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 2 3. Because, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order

U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-VI(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2011-12

Section 253 of the Act, authorizes the respondent to file cross-objection against any part of the impugned order by which it is aggrieved. The procedure contemplated in the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and followed by the Registry is that on receipt of an appeal from the appellant it issues notice to the respondent. Though

DY. C.I.T., RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2011-12

Section 253 of the Act, authorizes the respondent to file cross-objection against any part of the impugned order by which it is aggrieved. The procedure contemplated in the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and followed by the Registry is that on receipt of an appeal from the appellant it issues notice to the respondent. Though

DY. C.I.T., RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2011-12

Section 253 of the Act, authorizes the respondent to file cross-objection against any part of the impugned order by which it is aggrieved. The procedure contemplated in the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and followed by the Registry is that on receipt of an appeal from the appellant it issues notice to the respondent. Though

DY. C.I.T., RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2011-12

Section 253 of the Act, authorizes the respondent to file cross-objection against any part of the impugned order by which it is aggrieved. The procedure contemplated in the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and followed by the Registry is that on receipt of an appeal from the appellant it issues notice to the respondent. Though

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S BADRI PRASAD KEDAR NATH, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 69A of Income-tax Act when the initial addition was made by Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 68 of Income-tax Act. The addition of Rs.7,68,466/- sustained by Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is erred in law and deserves to be deleted. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred

SHRI BADRI PRASAD KEDAR NATH,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 69A of Income-tax Act when the initial addition was made by Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 68 of Income-tax Act. The addition of Rs.7,68,466/- sustained by Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is erred in law and deserves to be deleted. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred