“NFAC”

Balraj Singh, Shahjahanpur vs. ITO-I(5), Shahjahanpur

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

I.T.A. No.857/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE

Atul Singh Yadav, Lucknow vs. The Income Tax Officer, Range-4(1), Lucknow

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2020-21 Atul Singh Yadav V. The Income Tax Officer, A-189, Omaxe City, Raebareli Range-4(1) Road, Near Ramabai Maidan, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226025. 57-Ram Tirath Marg, Narhi Bazar, Narahi, Hazratganj, Lucknow- 262001. Pan:Bcppy1781G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shivam Thakur, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020

Ashoka Minerals, Kanpur Dehat vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC

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

TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2018-19 Ashoka Minerals, vs. ITO-NFAC Alampur Sikandra, NH-2, Kanpur Dehat, U.P. PAN: ABKFA0732C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.A. Revenue by: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla ... NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for failure to make compliance to the various notices issued by him, the details of which

Kapil Khandelwal, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Kapil Khandelwal, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of 56, Moar Kothi, Gangapur, Bareilly Income Tax, Circle-I, Bareilly Pan: Aiypk4908M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 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), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Penalty Levied Upon The Assessee Under Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Ao On 17.03.2022 & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because Requisite Satisfaction For Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) If The Income Tax Act 1961 Was Not Recorded In The Regular Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2017 Passed A/S 100%, Therefore, Penalty Proceedings Got Wholly Vitiated & Consequently, The Id. "Cit(A)" Ought To Have Quashed The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022, Being Illegal, Bad-In-Law & Without Jurisdiction 2. Because The Show Cause Notice For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Did Not Specify Under Which Limb Penalty Was Sought To Be Imposed I.E.. Whether On Account Of Concealment Of Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Consequently, The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022 Passed By Faceless Assessing Officer Deserved To Be Quashed.

NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty levied upon the assessee under section ... penalty of Rs. 12,76,132/- came to be levied upon the assessee. 5. The assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. The ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee including the case laws cited by him but held that in this particular case

Smt. Kumud Yadav, Kanpur vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Smt. Kumud Yadav, Vs. Assessing Officer, Assessment Plot No. 192A, Awadhpuri Road, Unit, Income Tax Department, Lakhanpur, Kanpur Nagar Nfac, Delhi Pan: Abjpy4062E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Pradeep Seth, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 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), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 11.0.025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Set Aside The Orders Of The Assessing Officer Passed For The A.Y. 016-17 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That The Assessment Order Passed U/S 147 Is Without Jurisdiction & Invalid As The Same Violates The Provisions Of "E-Assessment Of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme 2022" Notified On 29.03.22 Framed In Pursuance Of Sub Sections 1 & 2 Of Section 151A Of The Act Laying Down The Issue Of Notice U/S 148 In The Faceless Manner Through Automated Allocation Whereas In The Assessee'S Case It Has Not Been Issued In A Faceless Manner But By Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Who Was Not Assigned The Case In An Automated Manner. (Reliance On Judgement In The Case Of Hexaware Technoligies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Others Reported In 464 Itr P. 430 (Paras 32 To 39).

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2016-17 Smt. Kumud Yadav, vs. Assessing Officer, Assessment Plot No. 192A, Awadhpuri Road, Unit, Income Tax Department, Lakhanpur, Kanpur Nagar NFAC, Delhi PAN: ABJPY4062E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Pradeep Seth, Adv Revenue by: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl CIT DR Date of hearing: 29.01.2026 Date ... NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 11.0.025, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has set aside the orders of the Assessing Officer passed

Opg Sons Properties Pvt. Ltd., Sitapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Sitapur

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

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 25.02.2025, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee against the orders ... Income Tax Act and brought the same to tax under section 115BBE. 3. Aggrieved with this addition, the assessee filed an appeal before the NFAC. However, the ld. CIT(A) records the fact that five notices were issued to the assessee and while four of the notices resulted in adjournment

Pankaj Agarwal, Kanpur vs. The AO Special Range, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Pankaj Agarwal, 7/151, Ratan Vs. The Assessing Officer, Majestic, Opp. Sony World, Special Range, Kanpur- Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur-208002 208001 Pan: Abnpa4816E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 9.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao, Special Range, Kanpur, Passed Under Section 143(3) On 26.09.2019. 2. It Is Seen From The Record That The Appeal Is Delayed By 2 Days. However, Since The Date Of Filing Is Preceded By Saturday & Sunday, Wherein The Offices Of The Itat Were Closed, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Treating The Loss Of Rs.42,17,895/- Being Loss On Account Of Trading In Derivatives As A Capital Loss As Against Business Loss Claimed By The Assessee, Which Finding Of The Ao Being Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Addition Made Be Deleted.

NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 9.01.2024 wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the orders of the ld. AO, Special Range, Kanpur, passed under section