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

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)

disallowance of claim does not lead to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I. T. Act. (4) The penalty

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

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.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessee has not 1 A.Y. 2015-16 Kapil Khandelwal been found to have concealed his income as erroneously alleged in the penalty order. 3.2 BECAUSE mere disallowance

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore, the penalty levied deserves to be deleted. 8. That the Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals)-I Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the penalty levied by the A.O. amounting to Rs.4,15,000/- on account of disallowance

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

disallowances made and not on account of any concealment of the1 particulars of the income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of the income, as such, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) being not applicable, the authorities below have erred in imposing the penalty of Rs.1,26,065/-, which penalty being bad in law be deleted. 05. Because there being

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

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

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

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance of claim of interest on unsecured loans. 12. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. "CIT(A)" should have directed the AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance of claim of interest on unsecured loans. 12. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. "CIT(A)" should have directed the AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. J/DCIT-CC,, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance of claim of interest on unsecured loans. 12. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. "CIT(A)" should have directed the AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271

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.”

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

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

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

penalty of Rs.2,92,000/- that had been imposed by the Asstt. ClT-ll, Kanpur, by virtue of order dated 29.03.2016 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. BECAUSE on a due consideration of chronology of relevant dates and events, as culled out from the orders passed by the authorities below, and given hereinafter: SI. Date Events

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BAREILLY vs. M/S L.H SUGAR FACTORY PVT. LTD.,, PILIBHIT

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars is initiated separately.” The above findings of Assessing Officer clearly demonstrate that Assessing Officer has made the disallowance