SACHIN 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

253 (Gau.) Manu/GH/07070/2018 in para-28 has held as under: "When an Authority is required to give his approval, it is also to be understood that such Authority makes an application of mind as to whether the matter that is required to be approved satisfies all the requirements of Law or procedure to which it may be subjected. In other

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

253 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before Hon'ble Tribunal against the impugned order. 3. That various grounds taken by department does not arise out of the impugned order. The appeal by the department is wrong and liable to be dismissed as not maintainable 4. That the Ld. A.O. is wrong in not appreciating the fact that

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

2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii).\n3. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that as per 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

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

bogus purchases as genuine ones after\nadmitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A.\n\nC.O.No.01/Lkw/2025\n\"1.\nBecause the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts & law not\ndeleting the issue relating to issuance of notice u/s 148 by\nAssessing Officer not accordance with law and facts.\n\n2.\nBecause the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining

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

bogus purchases as genuine ones after admitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A.” C.O.No.01/Lkw/2025 “1. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts & law not deleting the issue relating to issuance of notice u/s 148 by Assessing Officer not accordance with law and facts. 2. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

bogus purchases as genuine ones after admitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A.” C.O.No.01/Lkw/2025 “1. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts & law not deleting the issue relating to issuance of notice u/s 148 by Assessing Officer not accordance with law and facts. 2. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition

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

bogus purchases as genuine ones after admitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A.” C.O.No.01/Lkw/2025 “1. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts & law not deleting the issue relating to issuance of notice u/s 148 by Assessing Officer not accordance with law and facts. 2. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition

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

In the result, appeals vide I

bogus purchases as genuine ones after admitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A.”\n\nC.O.No.01/Lkw/2025\n\n1.\nBecause the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts & law not deleting the issue relating to issuance of notice u/s 148 by Assessing Officer not accordance with law and facts.\n\n2.\nBecause the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining

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

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

KAPIL KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BAREILLY , 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.

purchase of those shares was done with a view of generating bogus entry of long term capital gains for exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the said capital gains claimed exempt should not be disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. After

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

253 CTR (SC) 305 wherein the reopening beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year is held to be invalid by Hon’ble Supreme Court: Conclusion : Assessee having disclosed full details of its dealings in stocks and shares in its return while claiming that the loss incurred by it was a business loss, reopening of the assessment

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

253 CTR (SC) 305 wherein the reopening beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year is held to be invalid by Hon’ble Supreme Court: Conclusion : Assessee having disclosed full details of its dealings in stocks and shares in its return while claiming that the loss incurred by it was a business loss, reopening of the assessment