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

Section 44AD of the Act @ 8% amounting to Rs.6,00,807/-. The Assessing Authority in para no. 4.5.2 of the assessment order, has stated that the payments made by the above entities on purchase of liquor and collected tax at source u/s 206CA of the Act does not appear to be made in the mode of cash. While there appears

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

Section 44AD of the Act @ 8% amounting to Rs.6,00,807/-. The Assessing Authority in para no. 4.5.2 of the assessment order, has stated that the payments made by the above entities on purchase of liquor and collected tax at source u/s 206CA of the Act does not appear to be made in the mode of cash. While there appears

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

Section 44AD of the Act @ 8% amounting to Rs.6,00,807/-. The Assessing Authority in para no. 4.5.2 of the assessment order, has stated that the payments made by the above entities on purchase of liquor and collected tax at source u/s 206CA of the Act does not appear to be made in the mode of cash. While there appears

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

Section 44AD of the Act @ 8% amounting to Rs.6,00,807/-. The Assessing Authority in para no. 4.5.2 of the assessment order, has stated that the payments made by the above entities on purchase of liquor and collected tax at source u/s 206CA of the Act does not appear to be made in the mode of cash. While there appears

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

SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR SHAH,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(5), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoorassessment Year 2013-14 Devendra Kumar Shah, Ito -3(5), Vs. Kanpur - 208001 701 Urvashi Apartment, 7/292, Tilak Nagar, Kapur - 208002 Pan – Abmps 9132J (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 143(2) by DCIT, Kanpur-2 beyond the statutory period of time is without jurisdiction and therefore, any order passed in consequence of such notice is also liable to be quashed. Therefore, we are in agreement with the argument of Ld. AR. Accordingly, additional grounds of appeal 5 to 8 are allowed. Since we have decided the legal issues

MAKASHOOD ASHARAF,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, LAKHIMPUR KHERI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Makashood Asharaf, 98-Moh. The Income Tax Officer, Seikh Sarain, Kheri Town, Distt.- Vs. Range-3(4), Lakhimpur Kheri- Lakhimpur Kheri-1 (U.P.) 1 Pan:Bkwpa9250R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.07.2022 Upholding The Penalty Levied Under Section 271B By The Ito-3(4), Lakhimpur-1 Vide His Order Dated 25.11.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

u/s 271B of I. T. Act is illegal and liable to be quashed.” And prayed that the same had been raised at this stage as this was a purely legal ground that went to the very root of the case. The assessee placed reliance on the following cases for proposition that he was entitled to raise the fresh legal ground

JEDY TAPES PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals stand partly allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorin Ita No.568 & 569/Lkw/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Jedy Tapes Private Limited Dcit 16/1A. Abdul Hamid Street Cc-Ii 5Th Floor, Kolkata Lucknow West Bengal Tan/Pan:Aaacj8642E (Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Smt. Priyanka Ajit Saria, Fca Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24 03 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 05 2021 O R D E R

penalty of Rs.25,00,000/- levied u/s. 271(l)(c) by the A.O. vide order dated 27/09/2016 since the said order is without jurisdiction, illegal, erroneous and void ab initio 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that there was not sufficient and reasonable cause made out by the Appellant in filing the appeal which

JEDY TAPES PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals stand partly allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorin Ita No.568 & 569/Lkw/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Jedy Tapes Private Limited Dcit 16/1A. Abdul Hamid Street Cc-Ii 5Th Floor, Kolkata Lucknow West Bengal Tan/Pan:Aaacj8642E (Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Smt. Priyanka Ajit Saria, Fca Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24 03 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 05 2021 O R D E R

penalty of Rs.25,00,000/- levied u/s. 271(l)(c) by the A.O. vide order dated 27/09/2016 since the said order is without jurisdiction, illegal, erroneous and void ab initio 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that there was not sufficient and reasonable cause made out by the Appellant in filing the appeal which

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

SHASHI INFRA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ITO, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Shashi Infra V. The Constructions Pvt Ltd Addl/Joint/Deputy/Asstt/Income 328B, 5Th Lane Rajendra Tax Officer, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226004. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Tan/Pan:Aaucs5802M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

139 or in response to a notice issued under sub- section(1) of section 142 or 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. In this context, it is well settled that the requirement of full and true disclosure on part of the assessee is not confined to filing

SHRI KINGSHUK GHOSHAL,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-6(5), LUCKNOW

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Kinghshuk Ghoshal V. The Ito 6(5) E-402, Halwasiya Utsav Enclave Lucknow Opposite Hal, Faizabad Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Affpg3258L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 26.12.2017, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Lucknow-3 (Ld. Cit(A)) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.11.2012, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,05,233/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noticed That The Assessee Was Earning Interest Income From Saving Bank Deposits & Fdrs & That The Assessee Had Claimed Exemption Of Rs.71,54,619/- Under Section 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). During The

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 3.0 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), challenging the addition of Rs.16,75,288/- made by the AO on account of Long Term Capital Gain. However, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) by confirming the addition of Rs.16

NISHA FAZAL,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO-4(3), KANPUR-01

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of IT Act, 1961\npassed the order is clear cut violation of settled principle of law\nand against the principle of natural justice.\n6.\nBecause the Id. AO issued notice u/s 142(1) in the correct\naddress of the Appellant i.e. from Kanpur to Noida through\nspeed post and fixing the hearing date

LALJI YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-1(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Lalji Yadav, Vs. Ito-1(2), 3/152A, Vivek Khand, Gomti Lucknow (New) Nagar, Lucknow, U.P.-226010 Pan:Aakpy2220J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.07.2025 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 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Confirming The Penalty Levied Under Section 272A(1)(D) Levied By The Ito, Ward-9(1)(1), Lucknow Dated 27.01.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 Passed U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Giving Rise To The Penalty Proceedings U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Act, Has Been Set Aside By The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench 'A' Vide Order Dated 13.11.2024 Passed In Ita No. 448/Lkw/2024, Restoring The Matter To The Assessing Officer For Passing The Assessment Order Afresh, The Impugned Order Dated 09.10.2024 Passed By Ld. "Cit(A)" As Well As Penalty Order U/S 272A(1)(D) Do Not Survive & Consequently The Order Passed By The Lower Authorities Deserve To Be Set Aside. 2. Because The Order Appealed Against Is Contrary To Facts, Law & Principles Of Natural Justice. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

u/s 272A(1)(d) do not survive and consequently the order passed by the lower authorities deserve to be set aside. 2. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before or at the time of hearing of appeal

M/S. AXIS MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

271(1)(c) of the Act as the issue was entirely covered in favour of the assessee as the assessee had deposited the amount before filing of return of income and therefore, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT in IT Appeal

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

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

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