M/S. AXIS MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

68-69, Saket Nagar, Kanpur. Kanpur. PAN:AAHCA 0208 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri P. K. Kapoor, C. A. Respondent by Smt. Alka Singh, D.R. Date of hearing 29/07/2019 Date of pronouncement 31/07/2019 O R D E R This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A)-II, Kanpur dated 07/03/2019 pertaining

UP GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.743 & 746/Lkw/2024 & Ita No. 30/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Vs. Assessing Officer, Nfac Welfare, Lucknow Pan:Aaatu0957A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 23.10.2024, 28.10.2024 & 2.01.2024 In The Appeals Preferred Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3), The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aac(1) & The Penalty Order Under Section 270A. The Grounds Of Appeal In These Three Appeals Are As Under:-

68 could not apply to the facts of the case. vi. It was further submitted that there was no TDS non-compliance. All TDS have been deposited within the due date and the TDS returns had been filed. vii. The addition of Rs. 1,62,63,564/- on account of delay in depositing employees contribution to ESI / Provident Fund were

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

68,734/- as against the returned income of Rs.16,49,130/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, addition amounting to Rs.71,52,827/- was made by the Assessing Officer on account of ad hoc disallowance out of expenses and a further disallowance amounting to Rs.89,66,777/- was made by the Assessing Officer on account of late deposit of PF/ESI

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

43B of the Act. It remains undisputed that the labour cess is part of the contract account. That being so, the assessee is correct in contending that the addition, if any, is maintainable only in the hands of the client of the assessee Corporation and not in the hands of the assessee. The provisions made for labour cess

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

43B of the Act. It remains undisputed that the labour cess is part of the contract account. That being so, the assessee is correct in contending that the addition, if any, is maintainable only in the hands of the client of the assessee Corporation and not in the hands of the assessee. The provisions made for labour cess

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

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nRevision orders prejudicial to interest of revenue -Assessment year 2000-\n01 Whether assessment order which has been subject-matter of\nproceeding under section 263 may be a cryptic one but that itself does not\nrender assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to interest of\nrevenue Held, yes Assessee received gifts from

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

section 43B of the Act which is Rs. 3,68,33,045/- as per profit and loss account may be restricted

U.P SAMAJ KALYAN NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS U.P STATE CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.),LUCKNOW vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, LUCKNOW

section 43B of the Act\nwhich is Rs.3,68,33,045/- as per profit and loss account may be restricted

M/S. TIRUBALA INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-VI, KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Tirubala International Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of C-7, Panki Industrial Area, Vs. Income Tax, Range-Vi, Kanpur Kanpur, U.P. Pan:Aaect2086J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Vikas Garg, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Dcit-6, Kanpur Passed On 19.12.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ao, Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Addition Of Rs. 29,164/- On Account Of Late Payment Towards Employees Contribution To Esi. 2. That The Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate That The Payment Of Rs.29,164 Towards Employee'S Contribution To Provident Fund Was Made Before The "Due Date" Of Filing Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 Therefore There Could Not Be Any Addition Of The Aforesaid Amount To The Returned Income. 3. That The Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate That The Due Date As Mentioned In 36(1) (Va) Is To Be Read In Conjunction With Section 43B(B)

section 43B (b). 4. That the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in disallowing an amount of Rs.2,68

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-V, LUCKNOW vs. PATEL PAN PRODUCTS LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Gd Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Range-V M/S. Patel Pan Products V. Aayakar Bhawan, Ashok Marg, Ltd. Lucknow-226001. 37-38, Gaurabagh, Kursi Road, Lucknow-226002. Pan: Adypa2513M (Appellant) (Respondent) C. O. No. 09/Lkw/2019 (In Arising Out Of Ita. No. 736/Lkw/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Patel Pan Products Ltd. V. Acit, Range-V 37-38, Gaurabagh, Kursi Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Ashok Lucknow-226002. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aaecp0472C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kappor, Ca Respondent By: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2024 O R D E R

43B of the IT Act, 1961 on which explanation to section 275(2) is not applicable.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that a search & seizure operation u/s 132A of the Income Tax Act,1961 was carried out on the Harsingar Gutkha/Patel Group of cases. Simultaneously, a survey proceeding u/s 133A of the Act was also carried

RSV INFRA POWER PVT LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, RANGE 3(1), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

68,551/- by invoking Sec 43B in respect of Service tax which has never been debited to profit and loss account. The same fact was also reported in Form 3CD para 26(B). 5. That the Learned Court erred in facts of the case by adding a sum of Rs.7,28,139.70/- being interest on Service Tax, when the same

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

43B of the Act out of the total disallowance of Rs.20,00,000/-. In support of the same, copy of general ledger account was submitted. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the issues, held that since the assessee had not furnished any revised return, there was no infirmity in the order of the AO in making addition of Rs.30

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY. CIT, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

43B of the Act out of the total\ndisallowance of Rs.20,00,000/-. In support of the same, copy of general ledger\naccount was submitted. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the issues, held that since\nthe assessee had not furnished any revised return, there was no infirmity in the\norder of the AO in making addition of Rs.30

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT, LUCKNOW

43B of the Act out of the total\ndisallowance of Rs.20,00,000/-. In support of the same, copy of general ledger\naccount was submitted. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the issues, held that since\nthe assessee had not furnished any revised return, there was no infirmity in the\norder of the AO in making addition of Rs.30

HORIZON DWELLINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriahorizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd V. Pcit, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (Up)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aacch6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

43B, amount paid to RBI towards penalty for violation of KYC norms and deduction claimed towards provision for wage arrears. According to PCIT, AO had not conducted required enquiries to be conducted under respective provisions of the Act, which rendered the assessment order erroneous, insofar as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was held that

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