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

263 of the Income Tax Act, in as much as the original assessment order dated 11-02-2016 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. That the Ld. PCIT was wrong in not passing an speaking order ignoring the submissions made by the assessee during proceeding u/s 263 rendering the order under appeal

GURU KRIPA ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PR. CIT, , BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

revision u/s 263 of the Act, an order passed\nby the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is\nprejudicial to the interest of the Revenue if in the opinion of the Pr.CIT, the\norder was passed by the Assessing Officer without making inquiries or\nverification which should have been made. In any given

U.P SAMAJ KALYAN NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS U.P STATE CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.),LUCKNOW vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, LUCKNOW

revision merely because he is of the opinion\nthat further enquiry should have been conducted. If the AO has made enquiries\nand taken a view, the Commissioner cannot substitute his own view.\"\n7. Ground No. 7-\nThat the Ld. PCIT was wrong in invoking Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the\nIncome Tax Act and in any case wrongly made

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

u/s 263\nGoyal Family Trust v. CIT 171 ITR 698 (Alld)\nMerely because the AO's order is brief and cryptic that itself would not be\na case for revision.\nHari Iron Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax-263 ITR 437\nA bare perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that the Commissioner\ncan exercise powers under sub-section

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

u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was given for passing the assessment order. Thus, it cannot be said that the order was passed without conducting necessary enquiries also it has been held by Hon’ble Kolkata Bench of the ITAT in Satish Kumar Lakhmani vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-10, Kolkata and Hill Queen Investment

HORIZON DWELLINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriahorizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd V. Pcit, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (Up)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aacch6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

u/s 263. Thanking Your Honour Page 29 of 33 Yours Faithfully” (C.1) The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the aforesaid precedents referred to in foregoing paragraph no. 3 of this order and submitted that impugned order dated 23.03.2022 of the Ld. PCIT passed under section 263 of the Act should be quashed even on merits. (C.1.1

M/S MODEL EXIM,KANPUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriam/S. Model Exim Pcit (Central) V. 624-C, Defence Colony, 7/81-B, Tilak Nagar, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010. Kanpur. Pan:Aadfm6163H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Smt Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 29 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 11 2024 O R D E R

revision order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is liable to be quashed. 9. That the Order passed by the Ld. Pr Commissioner of the Income Tax(Central), Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in passing the Order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is wholly unjustified, arbitrary and deserves

M/S BASTI WINE CO. (ENGLISH),KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2014-15

revised u/s 263. Reliance in this respect was placed on the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2009] 289 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (HC) and further reliance was placed on an order of Delhi Tribunal in the case of in the case of Vodafone Essar South

FUTURE PHARMA PVT.LTD,KANPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, KANPUR

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

disallowance of\nRs.2,40,442/- having being made out of commission made, it is incorrect\non the part of the PCIT to state that the matter regarding commission was\nnot examined by the AO, the order passed by the PCIT is bad in law, be\nquashed.\n7. Because on perusal of the notice issued u/s 263, it is not appreciable

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

disallowed.\n\nLarge deduction claimed u/s 35 2AA 35 2AB 35 CCC and 35 CCD: Please\nfurnish the details of deduction claimed on the account of scientific\nresearch along with their document evidence.\n\n(Emphasis supplied) Large long term capital gains: You have shown a long\nterm capital gain of Rs.2,96,81,947/in return of Income

PRECIOUS BJUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, , BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.66/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Precious Buildtech Pvt Ltd V. Pcit Harmony Apartment, Adiacent Income Tax Department, To Bedi International School, Bareilly-243001. Dental College Road, Pilibhit Bypass Road, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aagcp1255R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Mazhar Akram, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 09 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

revised in 2002, w.e.f. 1.4.2003 which is mandatory, provides for accounting treatment of revenues and costs associated with ‘construction Contracts’, with reference to the stage of completion of a contract, i.e., as per Percentage of Completion Method (‘POCM').The objective of this Standard is to Prescribe the accounting treatment of revenue and costs associated with construction contracts. Because

HARSAHAIMAL SHIAMLAL JEWELLERS PVIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), BAREILLY

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Harsahaimal Shiamlal Jewellers Shri Vimalendu Verma, Private Limited, 148, Civil Lines, Vs. Pcit (Central), Lucknow, U.P. Bareilly, U.P.-243001 Pan:Aacch3785L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Act, Passed By The Ld. Pcit, Central ,Lucknow On 17.02.2022, Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer, Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act On 29.07.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred, Are As Under:-

revision u/s 263 cannot be exercised for redoing the investigation, rather the CIT ought to have done the investigation himself before restoring the matter to the AO. Grounds No. 9 The Learned PCIT, Bareilly has further ignored that in view of the provisions of explanation 2 of section 263, it is incumbent to point out what more enquiries would

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

263 and allowed difference upto 10%of estimated FMV by Valuation Department is within tolerance limit, no addition is warranted. In said case difference in percentile @ 10.47% was computed on the basis of estimation made by VO and Hon’ble MP High Court has dismissed the appeal of Revenue. iv. That Jurisdictional Hon’ble ITAT in case

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

263 and allowed difference upto 10%of estimated FMV by Valuation Department is within tolerance limit, no addition is warranted. In said case difference in percentile @ 10.47% was computed on the basis of estimation made by VO and Hon’ble MP High Court has dismissed the appeal of Revenue. iv. That Jurisdictional Hon’ble ITAT in case

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

263 and allowed difference upto 10%of estimated FMV by Valuation Department is within tolerance limit, no addition is warranted. In said case difference in percentile @ 10.47% was computed on the basis of estimation made by VO and Hon’ble MP High Court has dismissed the appeal of Revenue. iv. That Jurisdictional Hon’ble ITAT in case

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

revised return within the statutory\ntime limits) can be considered. Thus, any expenditure not claimed in the original\nreturn should generally not be allowed post-filing.\nPrayer\nIn view of the above facts and circumstances, discussion and submission\nmade by the under signed, it humbly prayed that the order of the Ld. A.O. may\nkindly be restored and therefore

NAVUDAI SHIKSHAN AND JAN KALYAN SEWA SAMITI,KANPUR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Navudai Shikshan & Jan Kalyan Sewa Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Samiti, 117/K/30, Sarvodaya Nagar, Tax (Exemption), Lucknow Kanpur-208005 Pan: Aagfn4916N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2025 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 (Exemption), Lucknow Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 30.03.2021 Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act For The A.Y. 2016-17 On 15.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Order Passed By Cit(E) U/S 263 Of The Act Dt. 30.03.2021 Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Be Quashed. 02. Because The Order Passed By Ao, Being Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue The Action Of The Cit(E) Set-Asiding The Said Order Is Without Jurisdiction, Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, Be Quashed. 03. Because The Order Passed By The Ao Being Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue, The Cit(E) Has Erred In Law In Setting Aside The Same, The Order Passed By Cit(E) Be Quashed & That As Passed By The Ao Be Restored. 04. Because The Cit(E) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Initial Assessment Was A Deep Scrutiny Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) Wherein Voluminous Queries Were Raised Which Were Complied With & Thoroughly Examined/ Verified By The Ao, The Necessary Enquiring Having Being Done, It Is Neither A Case Of No Inquiring Or Lack Of Enquiring, As Such The Cit(E) Has Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order, The Order Passed By Cit(E) Be Quashed.

u/s 143(3) wherein voluminous queries were raised which were complied with and thoroughly examined/ verified by the AO, the necessary enquiring having being done, it is neither a case of no inquiring or lack of enquiring, as such the CIT(E) has erred in setting aside the assessment order, the order passed by CIT(E) be quashed. 1 Navudai

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of survey carried out on assessee. In these two years, there is no issue of commission on sales and the only issue involved in these two years, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of same statement, which has been recorded u/s 133A of the Act. During assessment year