SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

capital gain against the short-term\nloss, the order passed by the Assessing Officer could not be deemed to be\nerroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.\nSection 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 -Revision Of orders prejudicial to\ninterest of revenue - Assessment year 2011-12 - Where Assessing Officer\nafter examining issue on points

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. SUDHANSHU TRIVEDI, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit V. Sudhanshu Trivedi Lucknow 21/1013, Sector 21 Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ackpt4164G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, D.R. Respondent By: S/Shri Rajat Jain & Akshat Jain, Cas O R D E R

Capital Gain to the tune of Rs.1,36,00,000/- and the assessee had failed to negate the information and, therefore, the reopening was very much valid in the eyes of law. The Ld. Sr. D.R. further submitted that the issue of limitation stood covered in favour of the Department by the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court

GENUS POWER INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITTED,NOIDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTERAL), LUCKNOW

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

167 (Del.); CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335\nITR 83 (Del.); CIT vs. Vikas Polymers 236 CTR 476/194 Тахтап 57; Hari\nIron Trading Company vs. CIT, 263 ITR437 (P&H); Malabar Industrial Co.\nLtd. vs.CIT,243 ITR 83(S.C.); CIT vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (P)\nLtd. 331 ITR 192 (Del.); CIT vs. International Travel House Lid. 194\nТахтап

AYYUB JAFRI,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW

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)

capital gain and having fulfilled all prescribed conditions and investment made in construction of residential house amounting to Rs.12033877.00/- in the present case during March 2015 F.Y. 2015-16 as well as till 31st July 2016 which is within prescribed period of sometime before and three years from the date of sale. 3. Because on the facts

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.

capital gains as sham transactions. It was submitted that penalty could not be imposed upon it until mens rea was established. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (P.) Ltd. 322 ITR 158 and submitted that penalty proceedings may be kept in abeyance in view

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

capital gain and therefore he had reason to believe that income to the tune of Rs. 3,31,15,313.49 had escaped assessment for the assessment year 2000-01. In Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. v. CIT [2008] 175 Taxman 262 (Delhi) it was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court as under: 19. Examining the proviso [set out above

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

capital gain and therefore he had reason to believe that income to the tune of Rs. 3,31,15,313.49 had escaped assessment for the assessment year 2000-01. In Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. v. CIT [2008] 175 Taxman 262 (Delhi) it was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court as under: 19. Examining the proviso [set out above

ARUN KUMAR MAURYA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

capital gains would not be assessable at the hands of the firm, yet for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph that in the absence of notice under Section 143(2) reassessment could not be held to be validly made . Thus, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order of the Tribunal.” (E.1.5) In the case of Pr. Commissioner

SH. SUKHVINDER SINGH,KANPUR vs. PR CIT, CENTRAL, KANPUR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

gain on sale of shares of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd on face value, without independent inquiry. The Ld. PCIT was of the view that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer showed non-application of mind on the documents and materials on record. The Ld. PCIT passed order dated 17.03.2020 under section 263 of the Act whereby

SH. SUKHVINDER SINGH,KANPUR vs. PR CIT, CENTRAL, KANPUR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

gain on sale of shares of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd on face value, without independent inquiry. The Ld. PCIT was of the view that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer showed non-application of mind on the documents and materials on record. The Ld. PCIT passed order dated 17.03.2020 under section 263 of the Act whereby

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

167 Taxman 265 (Punj. &Har.)], it was observed that no further separate deduction is allowable as per Sections 29, 144 and 145 of the Act. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:— "Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides for computation of income under section 29 on the basis of books of account and methods of accounting

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

167 Taxman 265 (Punj. &Har.)], it was observed that no further separate deduction is allowable as per Sections 29, 144 and 145 of the Act. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:— "Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides for computation of income under section 29 on the basis of books of account and methods of accounting

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

167 Taxman 265 (Punj. &Har.)], it was observed that no further separate deduction is allowable as per Sections 29, 144 and 145 of the Act. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:— "Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides for computation of income under section 29 on the basis of books of account and methods of accounting

ABHAY BENARA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Abhay Benara, The Deputy V. Commissioner Of Income C/O 24/4, The Mall Kanpur-208001. Tax, Central Circle-1 Kanpur. Pan:Adlpb2007Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

167 ITR 471 (SC). 7. Now coming to the ground of appeal, the facts giving rise to the appeal is that the assessee filed his return of income through electronic mode on 29.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs.2,82,000/-. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income

M/S CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,LAKHIMPUR-KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-I, LAKHIMPUR -KHERI

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

167 and 168/Lkw/2023, the Hon'ble Tribunal had held that\nthese investments could not be considered to be the investments of the society and\naccordingly the interest accruing on the said amount could not be said to be the\nincome of the society. The ld. AR, therefore, prayed that directions may kindly be\ngiven that interest earned on such deposits

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

167\n117,322,362\n- 1,564,195\n5\nKACHWA\n34,624,288\n34,740,997\n-116,709\nTotal\n451,476,014\n452,146,001\n-669,987\nTherefore resulting to above profit of eligible units will be reduced by\nRs.6,69,987/- in aggregate for computing deduction u/s 801A\nThe assessee was also asked to file a computation

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

In the result, appeals vide I

167\n117,322,362\n- 1,564,195\n5\nKACHWA\n34,624,288\n34,740,997\n-116,709\nTotal\n451,476,014\n452,146,001\n-669,987\n\nTherefore resulting to above profit of eligible units will be reduced by\nRs.6,69,987/- in aggregate for computing deduction u/s 801A\n\nThe assessee was also asked to file

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

167\n117,322,362\n- 1,564,195\n5\nKACHWA\n34,624,288\n34,740,997\n-116,709\nTotal\n451,476,014\n452,146,001\n-669,987\nTherefore resulting to above profit of eligible units will be reduced by\nRs.6,69,987/- in aggregate for computing deduction u/s 801A\nThe assessee was also asked to file a computation