DEE GEE SAW & METAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowance of Rs.3,22,274/- (for Assessment Year 2018-19) and Rs.1,94,670/- (for Assessment Year 2019-20) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution to PF / ESI invoking the provisions of section

DEE GEE SAW & METAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowance of Rs.3,22,274/- (for Assessment Year 2018-19) and Rs.1,94,670/- (for Assessment Year 2019-20) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution to PF / ESI invoking the provisions of section

RAJENDRA KUMAR AND COMPANY,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2014-15 Rajendra Kumar & Company V. The Dy. Cit-2 74/276, Halsy Road Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aacfr6463Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, Fca Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16 09 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 09 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15, Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Kanpur, Dated 13/6/2018, Taking The Following Grounds: 1. That The Impugned Penalty Order Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Is Illegal & Unsustainable In Law As The Ld. A.O. Has Not Mentioned Specific Charge In The Statutory Notice Issued Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That The Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals)-I Kanpur Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Penalty Imposed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Even When The Ld. A.O Has Not Mentioned The Specific Charge In The Statutory Notice Issued U/S 274 R/W Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That The Impugned Penalty Order Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Is Illegal & Ita No.584/Lkw/2018 Page 2 Of 7

274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the impugned Penalty Order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is illegal and ITA No.584/LKW/2018 Page 2 of 7 unsustainable in law as the Ld. A.O. has not recorded satisfaction in terms of Section 271(1)(c) read with section

SHRI SUBODH AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowances and the approving authority will also ensure that proper enquiry or investigations are carried out by the Assessing Officer on the relevant materials including material in the hands of the Department. Secondly, the Assessing Officer also keeps in mind the interest of Revenue. Therefore, the said provision provides application of mind by the approving authority of the Department. Therefore

TANEJA RICE & DALL MILLS,KANPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Ys. 2003-04

274 (accompanying the assessment order), penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not have been levied, much less upheld by the "CIT(A)". WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID 3. BECAUSE "CIT(A)" has erred in law and on facts in holding that "all facts were detected during the proceedings u/s 143 by AO during assessment and they were not disclosed

M/S J.S TOWER,KANPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Y. 2012-13 M/S J.S. Tower, Vs. Acit-I, 16/80-I, Civil Lines, Kanpur Kanpur Pan Aadfj5437B (Appellant) (Respondent)

274 r/w section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 2. That the Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals)-I Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the Penalty when the Ld. A.O. was not sure on which limb of charge he levied penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore, the penalty

M/S. UTTAR PRADESH FINANCIAL CORPORATION,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Y. 2007-08

disallowance represents real income and is not based merely on estimate or bald hypothesis 4) That the order of the Ld. A.O. failed 10 mention specific charge of default for which the penalty proceedings were initiated hence, the penalty imposed is bald, unsustainable, and in any case much too high and excessive. 5) That the order of the Ld. C.l.T

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

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)

section 271(1)(c) by the Income Tax Officer, Sitapur. The grounds of appeal preferred are as under:- “(1) That the penalty notice issued u/s 274 of 1. T. Act dated 09.12.2016 initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) of 1. T. Act did not specify the charge that whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of Income or furnished inaccurate

MR.BHUPENDRA KUMAR TIWARI,GONDA vs. ITO-6(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Ys. 2021-22 Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tiwari, Vs. Ito, P.S. Bhitaree-1, Wazirganj, Ward 6(1) Distt. Gonda Lucknow Pan Agmpt 0366J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024 O R D E R

disallowed for Rs. 1,50,000/-. 4. BECAUSE the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making assessment u/s 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961 as cash was deposited in the bank out of amount received from close relatives for the purpose of land purchase, therefore cash deposited out of amount received from close relatives and friends for the purpose

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

disallowed. In this case, assessing officer has not asked the assessee\nto submit the details of licence issued to him for the trading of liquor.\niii. The AO has also failed to examine the sales of liquor by assessee with\nsupporting documents such as sales bills/vouchers. Hon'ble Rajasthan\nHigh Court in the cases CIT Vs. Ram Singh and Others

M/S U.P STATE YARN COMPANY LTD.,KANPUR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2007-08 U.P. State Yarn Company Ltd. V. Dy. Cit 14/72, Smith Square Range Vi Civil Lines, Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaacu1674K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15 07 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 07 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Kanpur Dated 20/3/2018 For Assessment Year 2007-08, Taking The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. Because The Penaltv Order Dated 29.03.2016 Passed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Kanpur Was Wholly Illegal, Being Without Jurisdiction, As The Said Order Passed Without Obtaining Prior Approval Of Jt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax As Per Provisions Of Section 274(2)(B) Of The "Act", Consequently, The Id. "Cit(A)" Should Have Quashed The Penalty Order. Without Prejudice To The Aforesaid 2. Because Id. "Cit(A)" Was Not Justified In Dismissing The Appeal By Passing An E-Parte Order Without Affording Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard To The "Appellant" & Consequently, The Impugned Order Deserves To Be Set Aside & Penalty Imposed By The Assessing Officer Deserves To Be Deleted.

274(2)(b) of the "Act", consequently, the Id. "CIT(A)" should have quashed the penalty order. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID 2. BECAUSE Id. "CIT(A)" was not justified in dismissing the appeal by passing an e-parte order without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the "appellant" and consequently, the impugned order deserves to be set aside

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

In the result appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.743 & 746/Lkw/2024 & Ita No. 30/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Vs. Assessing Officer, Nfac Welfare, Lucknow Pan:Aaatu0957A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 23.10.2024, 28.10.2024 & 2.01.2024 In The Appeals Preferred Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3), The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aac(1) & The Penalty Order Under Section 270A. The Grounds Of Appeal In These Three Appeals Are As Under:-

disallowance of 30% of the same accordingly added back a sum of Rs. 1,65,19,038/-. vii. The ld. AO also observed that there was delayed payment of Employees contribution to Provident Fund amounting to Rs. 1,62,63,564/- as per the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va). Accordingly, he made an addition

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S SHRI RAMSWAROOP CHARITABLE TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Y. 2013-14

Section 3 had rightly held that the addition was not sustainable. 12. As regards the addition on account of personal expenses taken by the Department vide Ground No.4, the ld. AR submitted that the expenses incurred under personal expenses related to salary, medical expenses, staff welfare and payment to labour department and these expenses were directly linked with fee income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S SHRI RAMSWAROOP CHARITABLE TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2014-2015

section 11 thereby deleting the addition of surplus of Rs.3,90,37,074/-. 2. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law and facts by deleting the addition of Rs.3,05,40,229/- made by the AO on account of personal expenses ignoring the fact that the assessee could not produce proper vouchers during the assessment proceedings. I.T.A

THAKUR ROSHAN SINGH,BAREILLY vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Thakur Roshan Singh, Smirti Sansthan, Vs. Income Tax Officer Vill Chathiya Faizu, Shahpur, Baniyan (Exemption), Ward, Bareilly Faridpur, Bareilly Pan: Aabat8692F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 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), Nfac Dated 4.07.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 16.04.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Fact & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Made By Assessing Officer Rs. 60,20,000/- As Building Expenditure For Charitable Purposes, Arbitrarily Rejecting The Explanation Furnished By The Assessee. 2. Because, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Fact & In Law That Such College Is Being Constructed & Run In The Remote Village Where In Due To Various Exigencies & Not Availability Of The Banking Facilities, Payments Are Made In Cash. 3. Because, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Fact & In Law That The Payments Of Construction Had Made Not Being Rejected By The Ld. Ao. However, Due To Ongoing Work It Is A General Practice To Obtain Bills/Settlement Receipts Only On Finalization Of The Work, The Ld. Ao Has Arbitrarily Rejected The Same.

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 16.04.2021. The grounds of appeal are as under: - “1. Because, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in fact and in law in confirming the disallowance made by Assessing Officer Rs. 60,20,000/- as building expenditure

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

274 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee. ITA No.674/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 5 5. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of its appeal by the NFAC by raising the following

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

Accordingly all four additional grounds filed by the revenue in Appeal numbers 532 & 533 of 2014, stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

274 ITR 562, on account of the fact that the period of five years as mentioned in section 11(2)(A) had already expired on 31.03.2012. He, therefore, held that the assessee could not put the clock back to utilize the accumulated or set apart income for the purpose specified by the notice in writing. Placing reliance on the judgment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

274 ITR 562, on account of the fact that the period of five years as mentioned in section 11(2)(A) had already expired on 31.03.2012. He, therefore, held that the assessee could not put the clock back to utilize the accumulated or set apart income for the purpose specified by the notice in writing. Placing reliance on the judgment