KAMAL KANT VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 of the IT Act. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.2,22,289/- on account of interest on unsecured loan. 6. That the assessment completed by learned Assessing Officer is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful as no addition can be made merely on doubt or presumption without bringing any positive evidences. 7. That

M/S. MOTOR FAB SALES PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT/ACIT-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, Departmental appeal bearing

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit/Acit-4 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Lucknow Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Theacit-1 V. M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Shri H.S. Usmani, Cit(Dr)

253,167 210,763,527 100,000 1,017,835 140,400 7,683,209 30/11/2016 December,2016 7,683,209 4,513,202 2,881,668 1,933,770 100,000 2,695,472 189,365 10,359,472 31- 10,359,472 249,418 819,725 89,380 - 17,992 (83,950) 11,405,194 December,2016 January

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. MOTOR FAB SALES PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, Departmental appeal bearing

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit/Acit-4 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Lucknow Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Theacit-1 V. M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Shri H.S. Usmani, Cit(Dr)

253,167 210,763,527 100,000 1,017,835 140,400 7,683,209 30/11/2016 December,2016 7,683,209 4,513,202 2,881,668 1,933,770 100,000 2,695,472 189,365 10,359,472 31- 10,359,472 249,418 819,725 89,380 - 17,992 (83,950) 11,405,194 December,2016 January

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

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

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

section 144(2) of the Act,\nAssessing Officer is duty bound to record his/her dissatisfaction on correctness\nof claim of assessee before invoking the provision of section 144. As it is\nevident from language of section 144 as well as of rule 8D, recording of the\ndissatisfaction of Assessing officer as regard to correctness of claim

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

In the result, appeals vide I

1) of the Act in respect\nof his submission that the intention of the legislature was to give the\nnarrowest possible construction to deduction admissible under this\nsub-section. It is not necessary for us to deal with this submission in\nview of the findings recorded above. For the aforementioned reasons,\nthe Appeal is dismissed qua the issue

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68,990/- in group companies/sister concerns. This entail disallowances to be computed as per the provision of 14A of the IT. Act read with Rule 8D of the IT. Rules, 1962 as in the recent ruling by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, New Delhi, (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC), the same position as discussed

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

68,990/- in group companies/sister concerns. This entail disallowances to be computed as per the provision of 14A of the IT. Act read with Rule 8D of the IT. Rules, 1962 as in the recent ruling by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, New Delhi, (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC), the same position as discussed

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

68,990/- in group companies/sister concerns. This entail disallowances to be computed as per the provision of 14A of the IT. Act read with Rule 8D of the IT. Rules, 1962 as in the recent ruling by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, New Delhi, (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC), the same position as discussed

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

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

SRI SAINATH ASSOCIATES,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT-6, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] for short]/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). (B) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 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

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

68,990/- in group\ncompanies/sister concerns. This entail disallowances to be\ncomputed as per the provision of 14A of the IT. Act read with\nRule 8D of the IT. Rules, 1962 as in the recent ruling by the\nHon'ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, New\nDelhi, (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC), the same position as discussed

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(1

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

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