BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, ADMINISTRETIVE OFFICE,KANPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

penalty levied by the Ld. AO u/s 271C of the Act 1961, disallowance of LTC/LTA under section 10(5) of the Act, without

STATE BANK OF INDIA, OVERSEAS BRANCH,KANPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

penalty levied by the Ld. AO u/s\n271C of the Act 1961, disallowance of LTC/LTA under section\n10(5) of the Act, without

BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, ADMINISTRETIVE OFFICE,KANPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

penalty levied by the Ld. AO u/s 271C of the Act 1961, disallowance of LTC/LTA under section 10(5) of the Act, without

BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, ADMINISTRETIVE OFFICE,KANPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

penalty levied by the Ld. AO u/s\n271C of the Act 1961, disallowance of LTC/LTA under section\n10(5) of the Act, without

NARENDRA SACHIN ENTERPRISES,LUCKNOW vs. ITO NFAC, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance of expenditures. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271A(1)(d) of the Act and a penalty

NARENDRA SACHIN ENTERPRISES,LUCKNOW vs. ITO NFAC, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallowance of expenditures. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271A(1)(d) of the Act and a penalty

LEKHESHWAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,AYODHYA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2016-17 Lekheshwar Educational Trust V. Income Tax Officer Lekheshwar Complex Exemption Ward Naka By Pass Lucknow Faizabad (Ayodhya) Pan:Aaatl9836B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 09 2024 O R D E R

disallowance of TDS penalty Rs.16,970/- which was claimed ITA No.146/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 6 as revenue expense in Income

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LIMITED MAHOLI AYYUBI CHAMBER, RANIGANJ, LAKHIMPUR KHERI-262001,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SITAPUR-NEW, SITAPUR

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

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

disallowance of claim does not lead to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I. T. Act. (4) The penalty

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.

penalty order. 3.2 BECAUSE mere disallowance of exemption of long-term capital gain of Rs. 20,64,939/-claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act and treating

JAI SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. LD. AO, NFAC, JURISDICTIONAL AO- ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

penalty has been imposed, has been deleted by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, vide order dated 30/12/2024 in I.T.A. No.368/Lkw/2020, there remains no disallowance

ABDUL HAMEED CHIKWA,KANPUR vs. ACIT, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals in ITA

penalty imposed is bad in law and be deleted.\n4. Because the entire variation in the income returned and income\nassessed is on account of disallowance

STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE,KANPUR vs. DY. CIT (TDS), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 State Bank Of India V. Dcit (Tds) The Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar- 7/119, Radiance Town, 208001. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar-208002. Pan:Knps02318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 State Bank Of India V. Addl. Cit (Tds) The Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar- 7/119, Radiance Town, 208001. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar-208002. Pan: Knps02318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21 07 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 07 2025 O R D E R

penalty levied by the Ld. AO u/s 271C of the Act 1961, disallowance of LTC /LTA under section 10(5) of the Act, without

STATE BANK OF INDIA,SMECC, ZONAL OFFICE,KANPUR vs. ACIT9TDS), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 State Bank Of India V. Dcit (Tds) The Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar- 7/119, Radiance Town, 208001. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar-208002. Pan:Knps02318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 State Bank Of India V. Addl. Cit (Tds) The Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar- 7/119, Radiance Town, 208001. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar-208002. Pan: Knps02318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21 07 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 07 2025 O R D E R

penalty levied by the Ld. AO u/s 271C of the Act 1961, disallowance of LTC /LTA under section 10(5) of the Act, without

UP GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Before the Ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that the disallowances

ACIT, KANPUR vs. ARPIT OMAR, KANPUR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in limine, being not maintainable due to law tax effect

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraacit, Kanpur Arpit Omar V. 10/503, Laxmi Niwas, Hig-9, F1, Barra-8, Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh- 208027. Pan: Abapo2156Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

disallowance of Rs. 71,238/- made u/s 37 of the Act, ignoring the fact | that VAT penalty paid by the assessee

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

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

disallowed\nand added to the total income of the assessee. Since assesee has under-\nreported its income, penalty proceedings u/s\n270A

SRI SAINATH ASSOCIATES,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT-6, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

penalty In this regard it is to State that the Ld. AO has made an addition without specifying the reason of disallowance

ABDUL HAMEED CHIKWA,KANPUR vs. ACIT, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals in ITA

penalty imposed is bad in law and be deleted.\n4. Because the entire variation in the income returned and income\nassessed is on account of disallowance