NIRMAL SINGH,AYODHYA vs. ITO WARD-1,, FAIZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria & Sa. No. 07/Lkw/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita. No.83/Lkw/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Nirmal Singh The Income Tax Officer, V. 15/2/16, Janki Ghat, Ayodhya- Ward-1, 224123, Faizabad (Up). Cinema Road, Faizabad- New-224001. Pan:Bdsps4165C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri. Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 24 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10 10 2024 O R D E R

22,053/- under section 56(2)(vii) and Rs. 49,11,947/- under section 50C, treated as escaped income. The reassessment, being a result of what the AO considers concealed particulars of income, led to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee submitted a response to the show cause, citing various judicial

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(FORMERLY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),AYODHYA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

gains from business and profession’. The net surplus disclosed by the assessee of Rs.2,24,59,203/- in the income and expenditure account was therefore added to the total income of the assessee and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. 11. Moving on further, the ld. AO observed that the assessee had transferred funds to the infrastructure

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (FORMELY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),LUCKNOW vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result all six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

section of society for \ncommercial area as certain percentage has to be made available for local shops and \nshops for barber, vegetable vendor etc. which are disposed-off through lottery \nsystem. It is this leftover part from 5% of saleable area that is sold though auction. \nFurthermore, the disposal of residential properties is done by an Authority as per \nthe

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

section of society for \ncommercial area as certain percentage has to be made available for local shops and \nshops for barber, vegetable vendor etc. which are disposed-off through lottery \nsystem. It is this leftover part from 5% of saleable area that is sold though auction. \nFurthermore, the disposal of residential properties is done by an Authority as per \nthe

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

section of society for \ncommercial area as certain percentage has to be made available for local shops and \nshops for barber, vegetable vendor etc. which are disposed-off through lottery \nsystem. It is this leftover part from 5% of saleable area that is sold though auction. \nFurthermore, the disposal of residential properties is done by an Authority as per \nthe

MAHESH MITTAL,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-5, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshramahesh Mittal V. Acit, Range-5 1/16, Vinay Khand Gomti Income Tax Office Ashok Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Acqpm4459B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Akshay Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

22 of 31 9. IRRELEVANCE OF THE SPECIFIC MENTION OF THE ASSESSEE'S NAME - WHEN PROVEN TO BE PART OF BIG SCAM Penny stocks scams came into prominence in 21" century. Due to tax- exemption u/s 10(38) for long term capital gain for equity shares, some masterminds encourage/convince some assessees to invest in such penny stock which have artificial

VIJAY PAL SINGH,HARDOI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

E R Per :Shri Anadee Nath Misshra, A.M. (A) In this case, assessment order dated 21.03.2024 was passed by the Assessing Officer under section (u/s.) 147 r.w.s. 144 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’), whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.1,99,26,867/- as against returned income of Rs.3

NETPLAST PVT.LTD.,KANPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(3)(1), KANPUR

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

e-filed its return declaring income of\nRs.4,39,90,420/- on 29.09.2017. The assessment has been framed\nunder section 143(3) on a total income of Rs.5,24,24,938/- after\nmaking an addition of Rs.34,510/- under section 14A and\nRs.84,00,000/- under section 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961.\nGrounds No. 1 to 5\nrelate

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

E R PER BENCH: (A) These appeals, filed by the respective assessees, pertain to Rustam Foods Pvt. Ltd. group of cases. In Rustam Foods Pvt. Ltd. group of cases, search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the IT Act was carried out on 10/01/2018. For the sake of convenience and brevity, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order

M/S STANDARD FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT LTD,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

E R PER BENCH: (A) These appeals, filed by the respective assessees, pertain to Rustam Foods Pvt. Ltd. group of cases. In Rustam Foods Pvt. Ltd. group of cases, search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the IT Act was carried out on 10/01/2018. For the sake of convenience and brevity, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order

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

E R PER BENCH: (A) These appeals, filed by the respective assessees, pertain to Rustam Foods Pvt. Ltd. group of cases. In Rustam Foods Pvt. Ltd. group of cases, search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the IT Act was carried out on 10/01/2018. For the sake of convenience and brevity, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order

SHRI CHETAN SHARMA,KANPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

capital gains on the shares sold. Also, on perusal of the order passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the I.Tax Act, 1961, and plain reading of the of Para 2 at Page 1 of the order it is evident that the whole proceedings were initiated on the behest of the Assessing Officer. “It has been bought to the notice

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), KANPUR vs. SHRI ARVIND KUMAR GUPTA, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is held to be allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH.KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order of the ld. CIT(A)- 1, Kanpur under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 27.11.2018, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee.The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income

MR. PAWAN KUMAR SINGH,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2009-10 Mr Pawan Kumar Singh V. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1) 848, Tilak Colony, Subhash Nagar, Bareilly (Up). Bareilly. Pan:Ccrps4435G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 04 2025 O R D E R

22 04 2025 Date of pronouncement: 30 04 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: By way of this appeal, the assessee has challenged the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 17.07.2014, pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. That the Learned

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

22 4 (2003) 5 SCC 590 concerned with computation of the deduction, which is at a stage prior to allowing the deduction so computed. He submitted that there is no dispute that the computation of deduction is only from the eligible business. The claim of the Assessee, as accepted by the Appellate Authority, is that there is no restriction

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

22 4 (2003) 5 SCC 590 concerned with computation of the deduction, which is at a stage prior to allowing the deduction so computed. He submitted that there is no dispute that the computation of deduction is only from the eligible business. The claim of the Assessee, as accepted by the Appellate Authority, is that there is no restriction

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

22 4 (2003) 5 SCC 590 concerned with computation of the deduction, which is at a stage prior to allowing the deduction so computed. He submitted that there is no dispute that the computation of deduction is only from the eligible business. The claim of the Assessee, as accepted by the Appellate Authority, is that there is no restriction

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

e-assessment. The reply of the assessee was examined\nwith respect to documents submitted and information available on record. Books of\naccount were required to be produced.\"\nIt is evident from the above findings that the incumbent A.O. provided\nan opportunity of being heard before making the assessment order. The\nassessee did not raise point of barring of limitation