ARCHANA GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-6-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

disallow, and for the CIT(A) to set aside for fresh reassessment of the same. I.T.A. No.411/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 3 6. Because on facts and circumstances of the case that the notice u/s 148 and consequent proceeding u/s 151 for approval granted by CIT in an improper manner hence approval is invalid and proceeding cannot be upheld

PAWAN JAISWAL,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1(3), KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Pawan Jaiswal V. The Income Tax Officer 1(3) 29/43, Ghumni Bazar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpj4999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

sections 263 and 144B of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. The NFAC partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by restricting the disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUCKNOW vs. RAJEEV KUMAR KAPOOR, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

144B dated 17.12.2022 and allowed the appeal of the assessee. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. Because on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in Law and in facts while deleting the addition of Rs. 88,16,120/- u/s 69C r.w.s 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ignoring that

BOARD OF REVENUE SALARY EARNERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE-2(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Board Of Revenue Salary Earners V. Income Tax Officer Cooperative Society Limited Range 2(1) Chakbast Road Lucknow Quaiserbagh, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aabab5745M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rohit Bhalla, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 02 2025 O R D E R

disallowed by the AO under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and was added to the total income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 144B

VIMLESH KUMAR,RAEBARELI vs. ITO, RAEBARELI

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivatava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vimlesh Kumar Income Tax Officer V. Village & Post Thulendi, Income Tax Building, Jail Bachhrawan, Raebareli- Road, Raebareli-229001. 229301. Pan:Blbpk4834R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 11 2024 O R D E R

disallowance of u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, 1961. 4. Because the learned officer National Faceless Assessment centre Delhi erred both on facts and in law by making an addition of Rs.66,25,550/- on account of addition of u/s 40A(3) of the Act, 1961. Page 2 of 5 5. Because the learned officer National Faceless Assessment centre

DARYABAD CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LIMITED,BARABANKI vs. THE ADDL./JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NFAC

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2014-15 Daryabad Co-Operative Cane V. The Addl/Joint/Dy. Acit Development Union Limited Nfac Daryabad, Ram Sanehi Ghat Delhi Barabanki Tan/Pan:Aaaad4943N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 04 2025 O R D E R

144B of the Act, observing that the income derived by way of interest on fixed deposits and saving account with Banks fell under the head ‘income from other sources’ and it thus, it could not fall within the expression profit and gains of business and, therefore, was not admissible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, whereas

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

144B of the I.T. Act and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.27,71,185/- by making disallowance of Rs.19,26,000/- on account of unexplained license fees and Rs.7,50,045/- on account of disallowance of expenditures. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section

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

144B of the I.T. Act and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.27,71,185/- by making disallowance of Rs.19,26,000/- on account of unexplained license fees and Rs.7,50,045/- on account of disallowance of expenditures. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section

GURMEET TIMBER STORE,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-4(3), LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2022-23 Gurmeet Timber Store V. The Ito-4(3) 12A, Aishbagh Road Lucknow - New Rajendra Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aalfg7277L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Gurmeet Singh Walia, Fca Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 04 2025 O R D E R

disallowed. However, the assessee did not file any reply. The AO accordingly rejected the books of account under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) and the net profit of the assessee was determined as per provisions of section 44AD of the Act @ 8% of the total credit of Rs.4,11,55,965/-, which

MUKESH KUMAR SINGH,HARDOI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2),, HARDOI-/NFAC

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Mukesh Kumar Singh V. The Income Tax Officer 3 (2) Sadhinawa Uchwal Hardoi-1/Nfac Hardoi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bxkps8596P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.05.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Engaged In The Business Of Recovery Of Loans & Emi. The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.18,40,681/-. Subsequently, The Assessee Revised His Return Of Income On 23.11.2020, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.12,17,600/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason That The "Taxable Income Shown In Revised Return Is Less Than The Taxable Income Shown In The Original Return & Large Refund Has Been Claimed (Business Itr) Reduction Of Income In

144B of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.39,28,413/-. 2.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed ex-parte qua the assessee. ITA No.485/LKW/2025

RAM RATAN SINGH PAL,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Ram Ratan Singh Pal V. The Assessment Unit 5C/111, Girdhar Kunj Nfac Sector 5, Vrindavan Colony Telibagh, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ahqpp7018N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.01.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 15.01.2021, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.2,81,520/- Under The Head Income From Salary. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & A Refund Of Rs.2,50,510/- Was Created. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income Under Section 139(5) Of The Act On 25.02.2021, Declaring The Same Income Originally Returned, I.E., Rs.2,81,520/-. In The Revised Return Of Income, The Assessee Declared Income From Salary At Rs.2,81,520/- & Income From

disallowances made to the income returned. 8. Because on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the order of Assessment has been passed in absolute violation of the principles of Natural Justice, without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and therefore deserves to be declared a nullity. 9. The appellant craves for leave to add, modify, amend

SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH ,HARDOI vs. ITO-3(2),HARDOI-1, HARDOI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrait(Ss) A. Nos. 795 To 798/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shailendra Kumar Singh Ito-3(2) V. Subhan Khera Sandila, Hardoi- Hardoi-1 241305. Uttar Pradesh-241305. Pan:Cvqps4275L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By: Shri Naeem Khan, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

disallowance of deduction under chapter V1-A Actual Facts: The claim referenced above is valid, and supporting documentation has been included for your reference. c) An addition of Rs 7,54,892/was made with respect to agricultural income, Actual Facts: The appellant owns 18 bighas of agricultural land utilized for farming purposes. The aforementioned proceeds are directly associated with this

SHUBHANSHU AGARWAL,BAHRAICH vs. ITO-1, BAHRAICH

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2020-21 Shubhanshu Agarwal V. The Ito-1 C/O Shree Shyam Fertilizers Bahraich Shiv Nagar Bahraich (U/P) Tan/Pan:Bbhpa5931M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri B. P. Yadav, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

disallowed the amount of Rs.67,48,568/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 144B

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

144B of the Act; whereby the assessee's total income was determined at Rs.3,07,679/- against returned income of Rs.67,237/-. Subsequently, the assessment order was revised by the Ld. PCIT vide aforesaid impugned order dated 31.03.2024 passed under section 263 of the Act. Prior to the aforesaid order dated 31.03.2024 passed under section

GONDA COOPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD,GONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GONDA

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

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. Being Further Aggrieved, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Itat).

144B of the Act and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.42,66,598/- and made an addition of Rs.42,66,598/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Being further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT

NAND KISHORE SINGH,BARABANKI vs. ASSESSEMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, FACELESS

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Nand Kishore Singh V. Assessment Unit Jarmapur Income Tax Department Post Barauli Malik Lucknow Barabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ataps3227Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Jain, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

144B of the Act, computing the income of the assessee for the year under consideration as under, vide order dated 25.03.2023: Income as per assessment order u/s/143(3) of the Act : Rs.17,56,730/- Income as computed u/s/ 143(1(a) of the Act : Rs.17,56,730/- Variation in respect of unexplained cash credit : Rs.20,00,938/- Variation in respect

PUSHPENDRA SINGH,RAEBARELI vs. DCIT CIRCLE,, FAIZABAD

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Pushpendra Singh V. Dcit Circle, 680, Amar Nagar, Raebareli Faizabad/National E- (U.P)-229001. Assessment Centre Delhi Pan:Axbps1905L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the "Act" so as to make an addition of 30% thereof. 3.3 BECAUSE as per the material and information placed on record the sums aggregating Rs. 1,20,000/- (out of total expenses of Rs. 59,90,577/- claimed under the head "fuel and freight") represented payment towards freight on which TDS of section

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

section 144B of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act were initiated for under-reporting/mis-reporting of the total income. Show cause notices were issued and the same was not complied with. Hence, the Assessing Officer levied 50% of tax on under-reported income amounting to Rs.3,56,97,949/- u/s 270A of the Act and thus