SH. SUKHVINDER SINGH,KANPUR vs. PR CIT, CENTRAL, KANPUR

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

section 263 of the Act only after examining “the record of any proceedings under the Act”. The expression “record” has also been defined in clause (b) of the Explanation so as to include the Commissioner. Thus, it is not only the assessment order but the entire record which has to be examined before arriving at a conclusion as to whether

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

section 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

SH. SUKHVINDER SINGH,KANPUR vs. PR CIT, CENTRAL, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 263 of the Act only after examining “the record of any proceedings under the Act”. The expression “record” has also been defined in clause (b) of the Explanation so as to include the Commissioner. Thus, it is not only the assessment order but the entire record which has to be examined before arriving at a conclusion as to whether

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

section 263 of the Act. (B.1.2) We have heard both sides. We have perused the materials available on record. The Assessing Officer, vide his notice dated 25.11.2016, had made inquiry regarding the Long Term Capital Gain claimed by the assessee. Again on 07.12.2016, vide order sheet of the assessment record, the assessee was asked to show cause why the Long

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

263 of the\nAct and have restored the original assessment order dated 29.03.2014.\nAccordingly, the issues in dispute in ITA No. 370/LKW/2017 and Cross\nObjection No. 16/LKW/2017 are restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)\nwith the direction to pass de novo order, in accordance with law, after\nproviding reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee

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:-

section 263 and As such the order is bad in law and the same is liable to be cancelled. Grounds No. 13 That the Appellant craves leave to amend alters, add or forego any of the above grounds. 2. The facts of the case are, that the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. The reason

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

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 case; whether

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

section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Another relevant fact is that there was an outbreak of Covid19 and as per the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India In RE: Cognizance for extension of limitation with miscellaneous application No. 29 of 2022 in miscellaneous application No. 665 of 2021 in suomoto writ petition

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

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

section 263 nor has demonstrated as to how the order\nis erroneous or prejudicial to the Interest of revenue, failure to conduct\nindependent enquiry by the PCIT makes the order passed u/s 263 bad in\nlaw, the same be quashed.\n6. Because without prejudice to the above, on merits the case, return was\nselected under CASS to examine large commission

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

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be exercised by the Commissioner of Income Tax, but by going into the merits and making an addition, and not by way of a remand, recording that there was failure to investigate. There is a distinction between the failure or absence of investigation and a wrong decision/conclusion. A wrong decision/conclusion

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

disallowance was deleted. Purchases were considered genuine as they were supported by bills and payments, with no evidence of recycling of funds.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "80IA", "14A", "143(3)", "143(2)", "148", "139(1)", "139(5)", "251", "194Q", "69C", "80AB", "80A", "80C", "80U", "10(34)", "10(33)", "154", "263

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

263 ITR437 (P&H); Malabar Industrial Co.\nLtd. vs.CIT,243 ITR 83(S.C.); CIT vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (P)\nLtd. 331 ITR 192 (Del.); CIT vs. International Travel House Lid. 194\nТахтап 324; CIT vs. DLF Power Limited 329 ITR 289 (Del.); CIT vs. Eicher\nLimited 294 ITR 310 (Del.) CIT vs. Ashish Rajput

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.

263 of the Act, the order passed by CIT(E) be quashed.” 2. It is observed that the assessee’s appeal is delayed by 116 days. Subsequently, a petition has been filed for the condonation of delay in which it has been submitted that the order of the ld. CIT (Exemption) was served on the assessee on 15.04.2021 and according

PANKAJ AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. JT.CIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Pankaj Agarwal, 7/151, Ratan Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Majestic, Opp. Sony World, Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur-208002 Kanpur-208001 Pan:Abjfs4912R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma Sr Dr & Sh Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21.08.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit (A) Has The Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Loss In Trading In Derivatives Business Treating The Same As Capital Loss, As Against Assessee'S Claim Of Business Loss, To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, Which Order Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Disallowance Made By The Ao & Upheld Be Deleted. 2. Because On A Proper Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Also On The Interpretation Of The Provisions Of Sec 43(5), It Would Be Found The Loss Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Trading In Derivative Is Neither A Speculative Loss Nor A Capital Loss, The Same Should Ought To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, The Cit (A) Has Erred, In Treating The Same As Short Term Capital Loss.

section 72 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On perusing the documents of the assessee, the ld. AO found that the assessee had a total loss from derivatives of Rs.2,47,02,865/-. The loss to the extent of Rs.60,13,263.98/-, had been set off from the profit of commodity transactions and a net loss of Rs.1

U.P.COOPERATIVE FEDERATIONLTD,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(3), , LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.260/Lkw/2023 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 U.P. Cooperative Federation V. Income Tax Officer-2(3) Ltd Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Pcf Building, 32, Station Road, 57, Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow-226004. Hazratganj, Lucknow- 226001. Pan:Aaaau0373P अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri D. D. Chopra, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22 09 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 19 12 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

disallowances out of expenses. It therefore, implies that the learned Tribunal had set aside the assessment order dated 9.6.2006 and therefore, the limitation for passing fresh assessment order will be governed by the provisions under section 153(2A) of the Act which in this case subsisted upto 31.3.2010. b. To give effect to the order passed by this learned tribunal

MOHD. AYAZ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing 10% of the total purchases, such addition being contrary to provisions of law, the addition made be deleted, the assessment be quashed.” 2. The facts of the case are, that in this case, an original assessment order was passed under section 143(3) on 9.12.2019 on a total returned income of Rs.33,76,700/-. Subsequently, an order under section

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

263. According\nto him, section 11(2) contemplated only specific or concrete purposes and since\nthose were not specified by the assessee, the assessment order was erroneous and\nprejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, the assessment was set aside.\nOn appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal held, that on an examination of the scheme\nof the Act, since

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