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

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.3 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee on merits. 2.4 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. Because the Id. CIT (A) has failed

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.3 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee on merits. 2.4 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. Because the Id. CIT (A) has failed

M/S NAIYER ASSOCIATES,SITAPUR vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER-3(2), LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the appeal in ITA No. 549/Lkw/2018 is appeal against quantum additions. No one was present on behalf of the assessee when these appeals were called for hearing. However, there is an application filed by the assessee wherein it has been mentioned that the firm has been closed due to heavy losses

M/S NAIYER ASSOCIATES,SITAPUR vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER-3(2), LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the appeal in ITA No. 549/Lkw/2018 is appeal against quantum additions. No one was present on behalf of the assessee when these appeals were called for hearing. However, there is an application filed by the assessee wherein it has been mentioned that the firm has been closed due to heavy losses

ACIT-2(1)(1), KANPUR, KANPUR vs. UP STATE YARN COMPANY LIMITED , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraacit-2(1)(1) Up State Yarn Company V. 15/295-A, Civil Lines, Kanpur, Limited Uttar Pradesh-208001. 1 Smith Square, 14/72, Civil Lines, Uttar Pradesh- 208001. Pan:Aaacu1674K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 11 2024 O R D E R

penalty amounting to Rs.70,59,100/- was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, taking adverse view regarding addition of Rs.2,07,68,167/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The aforesaid amount of Rs.2,07,68,167/- was added by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the ground that

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

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

271(1)(c) of the Act dated 21.09.2022, pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14. 2. For the sake of convenience, both appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. First, we take up the ITA. No. 249/LKW/2024 (Quantum Appeal), pertaining to the A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

271(1)(c) of the Act dated 21.09.2022, pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14. 2. For the sake of convenience, both appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. First, we take up the ITA. No. 249/LKW/2024 (Quantum Appeal), pertaining to the A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds

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

penalty order levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(b) of the Act vide order dated 08.06.2006. 8. Because the learned CIT(Appeals) has failed to appreciate that order u/s 142(2A) dated 08.03.2006 has come to an end with efflux of time and on expiry of 120 days from the date the said order was issued

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)

penalty levied by the A.O. amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- on account of alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax act, 1961, in respect of disallowance of deduction

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

Deductions u/s VI A Rs. 15,455.00 Net Taxable Income Rs. 5,47,790.00. Tax Payable Income Tax Rs. 34,558.00 Less: TCS Rs. 8412.00 Net Tax Payable Rs, 26,146.00. Paid u/s. 140A Rs.35,000.00. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.439/LKW/2024: 1. The learned Assessing Officer passed the assessment order u/s.147/144 of the Income Tax Act 1961 by serving

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

Deductions u/s VI A Rs. 15,455.00 Net Taxable Income Rs. 5,47,790.00. Tax Payable Income Tax Rs. 34,558.00 Less: TCS Rs. 8412.00 Net Tax Payable Rs, 26,146.00. Paid u/s. 140A Rs.35,000.00. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.439/LKW/2024: 1. The learned Assessing Officer passed the assessment order u/s.147/144 of the Income Tax Act 1961 by serving

M/S. SAHARA CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Sahara Credit Cooperative V. Jcit (Tds) Society Lucknow Kapoorthala Complex Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Lknso9775D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri J.J. Mehrotra, C.A. & Shri Debashish Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 12 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07 01 2020 O R D E R

deduct the whole or any part of the tax as required by or under the provisions of Chapter XVII-B, or pay the whole or any part of the tax as required by or under (i) sub-section (2) of section 115- O, or (ii) the second proviso to section 194B. 10. In ‘Coca Cola Beverage

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-V, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. PREMIER CAR SALES LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

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

Penalty proceedings is initiated and notice u/s 271(1)(c) is being issued separately for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.” 4.1 The above findings of the Assessing Officer clearly demonstrate that Assessing Officer has made the addition on the basis of directions of Addl. CIT, Range-5, Lucknow and has not examined anything at his own. The Assessing Officer

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

u/s 50C/142A in response to which Valuation Officer, Allahabad has estimated the FMV of lease property as on 04/10/2013 at Rs. 43,46,000/- against actual consideration of Rs. 31,45,000/- vide valuation report dt. 14/06/2024. The relevant para of Assessment Order is as under: 7. During the year under consideration, the assessee was found to have purchased

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

u/s 50C/142A in response to which Valuation Officer, Allahabad has estimated the FMV of lease property as on 04/10/2013 at Rs. 43,46,000/- against actual consideration of Rs. 31,45,000/- vide valuation report dt. 14/06/2024. The relevant para of Assessment Order is as under: 7. During the year under consideration, the assessee was found to have purchased