M/S SHIVANSH INFRAESTATE PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Block-A, Surajdeep Income Tax, Range-6, 3Rd Floor, Complex, 1-Jopling Road, 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001 P.K. Complex, Lucknow Pan: Aaqcs5896P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 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 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 30.12.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1- The Ld. Cit (A) Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Ground That Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito-6(1) Lucknow On 01.04.2016 Without Appreciating That Jurisdiction Of Case Lies With Dcit, Range-6, Lucknow, Hence The Notice Issued By Ito-6(1) Is Without Jurisdiction & Invalid. Further, No Notice U/S 143(2) Has Been Issued By Jurisdictional Dcit, Range-Vi, Lucknow Within The Period As Per Section 143(2) Of L. T. Act. Hence The Present Assessment Is Invalid, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2- The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Upheld The Addition Without Appreciating That Ld. A. O. Rejected The Books Of Account & Instead Of Estimating The Net Profit, Additions Were Made On The Basis Of Same Books Of Account By Disallowing Expenses Under Different Heads Total Rs. 1,75,91,607/- & Addition U/S 68 R. W. S. 115Bbe Of I. T. Act For Rs. 1,32,78,833/- Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law.

Block-A, Surajdeep Income Tax, Range-6, 3rd Floor, Complex, 1-Jopling Road, 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001 P.K. Complex, Lucknow PAN: AAQCS5896P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue by: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR Date of hearing: 20.11.2025 Date of pronouncement: 13.02.2026 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S PRAG INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Videshri Anadee Nath Misshra

assessment order to claim that the disallowance of aforesaid amount of Rs.16,77,080/- was in the nature of capital expenditure. The learned A.R. for the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). (D.1) This issue has been decided by the learned CIT(A) in paragraph 8(1) to 8(6) of the impugned appellate order. The learned

SHRI MOOL CHAND KHATRI,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(2), , KANPUR

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

Bench: T.S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-14 Shri Mool Chand Khatri V. Ito 2(2) 126/9, P Block, Govind Nagar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Adjpk1670N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 07 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 15 07 2021

Block, Govind Nagar Kanpur Kanpur TAN/PAN:ADJPK1670N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date of hearing: 08 07 2021 Date of pronouncement: 15 07 2021 O R D E R This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Kanpur dated

M/S BENARA BEARING PVT.LTD,AGRA vs. DCIT-CC-1, KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. : B.P. 1996-97 To 2002-03 M/S Benara Bearings Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income- 44/347, Bharatpur Road, Vs. Tax, Central Circle-1, Kanpur Bodla, Agra-282007 U.P. Pan:Aabcb5525F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, Advcoate Revenue By: Sh. Gayasuddin, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21.09.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

disallowance under the block assessment which were already part of the record and no evidence or material was found during

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

block assessment, the\nblock period comprised the assessment years 1988-89 to 1998-99 plus a\nbroken period from April 1, 1998, to July2, 1998. For this broken period of\n3 months, the assessee had shown income of Rs.13,05,103. However,\nthis was not assessed as undisclosed income, since it was reflected in\nthe books of account. The assessee

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

Assessment year:2021-22 & 20-21 Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Vs. A.C.I.T., S/o Shri Surya Narayan Pandey, Central Circle-2, Vill-Devarda, Block-Belsar, Lucknow. Gonda-271401 PAN:ATIPP6520B (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by Shri H. S. Usmani, CIT (D.R.) Assessee by Shri Mahendra Kumar, F.C.A. Shri Reghunath Mishra, Advocate O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

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

Assessment year:2021-22 & 20-21 Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Vs. A.C.I.T., S/o Shri Surya Narayan Pandey, Central Circle-2, Vill-Devarda, Block-Belsar, Lucknow. Gonda-271401 PAN:ATIPP6520B (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by Shri H. S. Usmani, CIT (D.R.) Assessee by Shri Mahendra Kumar, F.C.A. Shri Reghunath Mishra, Advocate O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

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

Assessment year:2021-22 & 20-21 Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Vs. A.C.I.T., S/o Shri Surya Narayan Pandey, Central Circle-2, Vill-Devarda, Block-Belsar, Lucknow. Gonda-271401 PAN:ATIPP6520B (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by Shri H. S. Usmani, CIT (D.R.) Assessee by Shri Mahendra Kumar, F.C.A. Shri Reghunath Mishra, Advocate O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

KHANDELWAL SOYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,RAMPUR vs. ACIT(CENTERAL), BAREILLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the\nterms indicated hereinbefore

block assessment under section\n153A;\n\n(ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated;\n\n(iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of\nunabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the jurisdiction\nto assess or reassess the 'total income' taking into consideration the\nincriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material\navailable with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

block period that was assessed, section 153A of the Act seeks to assess the total income for the assessment year, which is clear from the first proviso thereto which provides that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year, falling I.T(SS).A. Nos. 336 & 337/LKW/2025 IT(SS).A. No.334/LKW/2025 24 within

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

block period that was assessed, section 153A of the Act seeks to assess the total income for the assessment year, which is clear from the first proviso thereto which provides that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year, falling I.T(SS).A. Nos. 336 & 337/LKW/2025 IT(SS).A. No.334/LKW/2025 24 within

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. MOHIT ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

block period that was assessed, section 153A of the Act seeks to assess the total income for the assessment year, which is clear from the first proviso thereto which provides that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year, falling I.T(SS).A. Nos. 336 & 337/LKW/2025 IT(SS).A. No.334/LKW/2025 24 within

ITO-6(1), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,, LUCKNOW

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.261/Lkw/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1), Lucknow . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

disallowed while framing the original assessment (d) the assessee was given reasonable opportunity before the impugned rectification was carried out u/s 154 of the Act by the Ld. AO. ITAT-Lucknow Page 4 of 9 ITO Vs U.P. State Mineral Development Crop. Ltd. ITA No.261/LKW/2020 AY:2007-08 7. A provision simply is a charge created against the revenue

TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Technical Associates Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 8Th Km, Faizabad Road Tax Vijaypur, Gomti Nagar Range 6 Lucknow Lucknow Pan:Aabct7365F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Santhosh Kumar Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25 06 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 06 2024 O R D E R

disallowed a sum of Rs.2,16,353/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, being the contribution received from the employees, as the same was deposited after the due date. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A), NFAC vide impugned order dated ITA No.228/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 7 18.05.2023 partly

LEAYAN GLOBAL PVT.LTD,KANPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(3)(1),, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Block P &\nT, Kalpi Road, Kanpur-208012.\nV. ACIT Circle-2(3)(1)\nKanpur.\nPAN:AABCL8692B\nअपीलार्थी/(Appellant)\nप्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent)\nअपीलार्थी कि और से/Appellant by:\nShri P.K. Kapoor, CA\nप्रत्यर्थी कि और से /Respondent by:\nShri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)\nसुनवाई कि तारीख / Date of hearing:\n02\n07 2025\nघोषणा कि तारीख / Date of\npronouncement:\n29\n07 2025\nआयकर

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR, KANPUR vs. SHRI MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Block-B, Scheme-39, Kanpur. Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur. PAN:AEMPA0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent by Smt. Sheela Chopra, CIT (DR) Date of hearing 18/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 05/08/2022 O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of learned

NAUSHEEN FARAH,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowing share loss by the AO affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) were those that out of the four blocks of shares delivery of three blocks were received after five months and the price was also paid after five months, but were immediately sold at a loss. The other grounds were that the share broker only in respect

ZAIN ALAM,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowing share loss by the AO affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) were those that out of the four blocks of shares delivery of three blocks were received after five months and the price was also paid after five months, but were immediately sold at a loss. The other grounds were that the share broker only in respect

SHAHEEN RABIA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowing share loss by the AO affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) were those that out of the four blocks of shares delivery of three blocks were received after five months and the price was also paid after five months, but were immediately sold at a loss. The other grounds were that the share broker only in respect