ABDUL HAMEED CHIKWA,KANPUR vs. ACIT, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals in ITA

disallowance of the claim made under section\n8OHHC and that being a legal claim, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) are\nnot

SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowances of Rs.2,23,000/- made by invoking provisions of\nSec. 14A of the Income tax Act, 1961 are contrary to law, unjust &\narbitrary.\n11. That the Id. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, while framing the\nassessment has wrongly worked out Rs.2,23,561/- invoking provisions of\nsection 14-A, is without any basis and without proper consideration

M/S JUPITER TRADELINKS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY,. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 M/S Jupiter Tradelinks Private Vs. Dcit, Limited, Dobiriyal Complex Gole Central Circle-1, Lucknow Market Mahanagar, Lucknow Pan: Aaccj0525G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akshay Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 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(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.11.2024 Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Dated 4.06.2019, Passed Under Section 271(1)(C). The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Both Law & Facts Of The Case By Confirming The Penalty Of 2,20,41,900/- Levied By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That: A. The Appellant Has Neither Concealed The Particulars Of Its Income Nor Furnished Any Inaccurate Particulars Of Income; B. There Was No Failure On The Part Of The Appellant In Truly & Fully Disclosing All Material Facts C. Mere Disallowance Or Rejection Of The Claim Or Stand Taken By The Appellant Based On Reasonable Interpretation Of The Law Is Not Sufficient To Attract Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) 3. The Amount Of Penalty Confirmed By The Learned Cit(A) Is Invalid, Excessive & Unreasonable.”

section 271(1)(c). The grounds of appeal are as under: - “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in both law and facts of the case by confirming the penalty of 2,20,41,900/- levied by the assessing officer. 2. The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that: a. the appellant has neither concealed the particulars

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(FORMERLY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),AYODHYA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

disallowed and why the net profit shown in its profit not be brought to tax. In response, the assessee submitted that its activities were of charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15), was not applicable in its case because its aims were the coordinated and planned development of the historical cities of Ayodhya and Faizabad. It further

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.

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 and consequently, the penalty order dated 17.03.2022 passed by Faceless Assessing Officer deserved to be quashed. 3.1 BECAUSE, even on merits

ABHAY BENARA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Abhay Benara, The Deputy V. Commissioner Of Income C/O 24/4, The Mall Kanpur-208001. Tax, Central Circle-1 Kanpur. Pan:Adlpb2007Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

271/- is being disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee.” 9. The Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the view of AO by observing as under : - “b. The second issue pertains to allowability of interest payment on the deposits/loans. It is seen that the assessee is running the business and for this business the borrowed money was not used

AGMOTEX FABRICS LTD.,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-6, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2005-06 Agmotex Fabrics Ltd V. The Dy. Commissioner 3/239 Vishnupuri, Kanpur- Of Income Tax, Range-6 208002. Aayakar Bhawan, 16/69, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Aabca6099H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23 02 2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15 04 2026 O R D E R

section 271(1)(c) are not applicable, the penalty imposed is bad in law be deleted. 04. Because without being prejudice to the above, the variation to the income so determined as per the general provisions also, is all based on account of disallowances

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

disallowed and why the \nnet profit shown in its profit not be brought to tax. In response, the assessee submitted that its \nactivities were of charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15), was not applicable in its \ncase because its aims were the coordinated and planned development of the historical cities of \nAyodhya and Faizabad. It further

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

disallowed and why the \nnet profit shown in its profit not be brought to tax. In response, the assessee submitted that its \nactivities were of charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15), was not applicable in its \ncase because its aims were the coordinated and planned development of the historical cities of \nAyodhya and Faizabad. It further

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (FORMELY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),LUCKNOW vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result all six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

disallowed and why the \nnet profit shown in its profit not be brought to tax. In response, the assessee submitted that its \nactivities were of charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15), was not applicable in its \ncase because its aims were the coordinated and planned development of the historical cities of \nAyodhya and Faizabad. It further

M/S ALLIANCE BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Alliance Builders & Asst.Commissioner Of V. Contractors Ltd Income Tax, Central Circle-2 C/O 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Allen Ganj, Kanpur. Pan:Aaeca8217A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 11 2024 O R D E R

section 142(1), penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of Rs. 10,000/was again imposed on 18.12.2014. Considering the above facts as well as past records, prosecution proceedings u/s 276D of I.T. Act, 1961 have also been initiated for willfully withholding copy of Audit Report with all enclosures and annexures for the year under consideration alongwith preceeding two years; books

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 145(3) of the Act itself is based on the said presumption that the appellant is allowed 12.5% centage uniformly for all projects. On the contrary the centage allowed varies from project to project and no inquiries have been conducted even on test check basis. The addition is therefore made on presumption which is not in accordance with

AJAY ARORA,KANPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, KANPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora

disallowance of any expenditure claimed as a deduction in computing the same would impact only the quantum of the business income and not its character, so that it would, where so, continue to be exempt. No provision akin to Explanation 7 to section 271

TINICH SAHKARI GANNA SAMITI LIMITED,BASTI vs. ITO, , BASTI

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

disallowed and was liable to be added to the income of the assessee. The AO also noticed from the ITS details that for ITA No.295/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 28 assessment year 2011-12, a refund of Rs.1,65,560/- was issued on 08.07.2014, on which interest under section 244A of the Act for Rs.16,412/- was included and that since

TINICH SAHKARI GANNA SAMITI LIMITED,BASTII vs. ITO, BASTI

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

disallowed and was liable to be added to the income of the assessee. The AO also noticed from the ITS details that for ITA No.295/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 28 assessment year 2011-12, a refund of Rs.1,65,560/- was issued on 08.07.2014, on which interest under section 244A of the Act for Rs.16,412/- was included and that since

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY, FAIZABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

disallowance of its exemption under section 11 and adding back certain amounts to its income. As both the matters are arising out of the same assessment order and same order of the ld. C.O. No. 20/LKW/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 M/s Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority CIT(A), they are taken up together for the sake of convenience. The grounds of appeal

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 80P of the Act has failed to appreciate that Appellant has been enjoying the benefit of section 80P(2) and the said deduction is not dependent on the quantification of claim made as any addition made to the income specified u/s 80P(2), the corresponding deduction automatically increases too and therefore, such additions create Tax Neutral

ASHRAY VENTURES PVT. LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSING OFFICER CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUCKNOW

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Ashray Ventures Pvt. Ltd. V. The Assessing Officer Gole Market Central Circle – 1 Mahanagar, Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aakca3580E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee. ITA No.152/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 9 2.3 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the impugned order