RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

penalty u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. First, we take up the ITA. No. 301/LKW/2025 (Quantum Appeal), pertaining

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

penalty u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. First, we take up the ITA. No. 301/LKW/2025 (Quantum Appeal), pertaining

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

penalty u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. First, we take up the ITA. No. 301/LKW/2025 (Quantum Appeal), pertaining

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

penalty u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. First, we take up the ITA. No. 301/LKW/2025 (Quantum Appeal), pertaining

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

penalty proceedings under \nsection 271(1)(c) were initiated. \n11. Moving on further, the ld. AO observed that the assessee had transferred funds to the \ninfrastructure development fund. However, it had not included these receipts in its income for \nthe year. The assessee had transferred the amounts to the infrastructure development fund in its \nbalance-sheet, which according

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

u/s 11 on the ground that the appellant is hit by the provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by not treating the appellant as Charitable Institution, even though the same has already been adjudged

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

penalty proceedings under \nsection 271(1)(c) were initiated.\n11. Moving on further, the ld. AO observed that the assessee had transferred funds to the \ninfrastructure development fund. However, it had not included these receipts in its income for \nthe year. The assessee had transferred the amounts to the infrastructure development fund in its \nbalance-sheet, which according

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

penalty proceedings under \nsection 271(1)(c) were initiated. \n11. Moving on further, the ld. AO observed that the assessee had transferred funds to the \ninfrastructure development fund. However, it had not included these receipts in its income for \nthe year. The assessee had transferred the amounts to the infrastructure development fund in its \nbalance-sheet, which according

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) of I. T. Act. (4) The penalty imposed is highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon by the Ld. A.Ο.” 2. The facts of the case are that the case was taken up for scrutiny through

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.

business income by the authorities below does not tantamount to concealment of income and consequently, the Id. "CIT(A)" ought to have cancelled the penalty of Rs. 12,76,132/-levied by the Faceless Assessing Officer. 4. BECAUSE, without prejudice to grounds hereinfore, the ld." CIT(A)", while upholding the penalty order u/s 271

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

u/s 80P(2)(a) as claimed by appellant deserves to be allowed. 12. That the appellant craves leave to argue any other ground/s at time of hearing of appeal. 3.0 In assessment year 2014-15 (ITA No.294/LKW/2023), the assessee e-filed its return of income on 14.01.2016 and whole of its business income, amounting to Rs.35,57,576/-, was claimed

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

u/s 80P(2)(a) as claimed by appellant deserves to be allowed. 12. That the appellant craves leave to argue any other ground/s at time of hearing of appeal. 3.0 In assessment year 2014-15 (ITA No.294/LKW/2023), the assessee e-filed its return of income on 14.01.2016 and whole of its business income, amounting to Rs.35,57,576/-, was claimed

REETA DEVI,BANNAMAU LALGANJ RAEBARELI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, RAEBARELI

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

u/s. 69C of the Act. : Rs.8,41,179/- Total income determined : Rs.99,18,131/- ITA No.440 & 439/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 12 4. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the reason that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income and imposed a penalty of Rs.30,64,702/-, vide order dated

REETA DEVI,BANNA MAU LALGANJ RAEBARELI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, RAEBARELI

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

u/s. 69C of the Act. : Rs.8,41,179/- Total income determined : Rs.99,18,131/- ITA No.440 & 439/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 12 4. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the reason that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income and imposed a penalty of Rs.30,64,702/-, vide order dated

MADAN LAL JAIN,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), KANPUR

In the result, these appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Madan Lal Jain Dcit, Central Circle-1 V. 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur- [Now Ito-1(2)] 208001. Kanpur. Pan:Abwpj2684C (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and 271(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “Act”) dated 29.08.2017 and 20.06.2023 respectively, pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14. For the sake of convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - ITA. No.679/LKW/2017 ITA Nos. 257 & 258/LKW/2023

SHRI MADAN LAL JAIN,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (NOW ITO-1(2)), KANPUR

In the result, these appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Madan Lal Jain Dcit, Central Circle-1 V. 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur- [Now Ito-1(2)] 208001. Kanpur. Pan:Abwpj2684C (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and 271(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “Act”) dated 29.08.2017 and 20.06.2023 respectively, pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14. For the sake of convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - ITA. No.679/LKW/2017 ITA Nos. 257 & 258/LKW/2023

MADAN LAL JAIN,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), KANPUR

In the result, these appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Madan Lal Jain Dcit, Central Circle-1 V. 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur- [Now Ito-1(2)] 208001. Kanpur. Pan:Abwpj2684C (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and 271(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “Act”) dated 29.08.2017 and 20.06.2023 respectively, pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14. For the sake of convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - ITA. No.679/LKW/2017 ITA Nos. 257 & 258/LKW/2023

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Income-tax, Allahabad v. Target Construction Co. Ltd and the fact that depreciation of Rs. 14,99,267/- has already been disallowed, the net profit rate of 11% applied by the Assessing Officer is too high when appellant has shown comparatively higher profit margin of 10.13% and 9.68% in subsequent years

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Income-tax, Allahabad v. Target Construction Co. Ltd and the fact that depreciation of Rs. 14,99,267/- has already been disallowed, the net profit rate of 11% applied by the Assessing Officer is too high when appellant has shown comparatively higher profit margin of 10.13% and 9.68% in subsequent years