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

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. 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

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

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

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 2

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 2

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

2 of section 263, it is incumbent to point\nout what more enquiries would the AO ought to have conducted.\nGrounds No. 10 That the Learned PCIT, Bareilly has also failed to\nappreciate that, u/s 263 of the Act, an order of assessment cannot be set-\naside to simply to make further enquiries and thereafter pass fresh order\nof assessment

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

2. That the Ld. A.O. is wrong in contending and taking shelter under ITAT Order in Appeal No. ITA 821 and 544 / LKW -2012 and ITA 108/LKW -2013 for Assessment Year 2009-10 so as to justify addition of Rs. 77,80,570/- and Rs 4,20,15,078/- to the total income of the Assessee whereas

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR vs. SMT. SHEHLA AHMED , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-1 V. Smt. Shehla Ahmad Kanpur 376-C, Allied Street Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpa4122N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.09/Lkw/2018 [In Ita No.181/Lkw/2018] Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Shehla Ahmad V. Dy. Cit-1 376-C, Allied Street Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpa4122N (Cross-Objector) (Respondent) Department By: Shri R. K. Vishvakarma, D.R. Assessee By: Shri Swarn Singh, Fca Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 08 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Revenue’S Appeal & Assessee’S Cross Objection Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Kanpur, Dated 1/12/2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Kanpur Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.22,00,000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Undisclosed

Disallowance u/s 40a(ia) - Rs. 9,63,357/ iv. Interest on bank account - Rs. 20,413/- ITA No.181/LKW/2018 & C.O. No.09/LKW/2018 Page 3 of 13 4. The A.O also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the amount surrendered during assessment proceedings, by issuing notice dated 31.03.2016 under section 274

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

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

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

2 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Limited vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC). The additional ground of appeal taken by the assessee reads as under: “Because the approval given by the JCIT u/s 153D of the Act to the order passed u/s 153A is without application of mind, purely in a mechanical manner, without appreciating

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

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

2. At the outset, the ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer had made various additions, which the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly deleted. 3 3. Arguing Ground No.1, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee had charged extra fees from the students in excess of the stipulated fees approved by the statutory body which was nothing but the capitation

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

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

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