NIRMAL SINGH,AYODHYA vs. ITO WARD-1,, FAIZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria & Sa. No. 07/Lkw/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita. No.83/Lkw/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Nirmal Singh The Income Tax Officer, V. 15/2/16, Janki Ghat, Ayodhya- Ward-1, 224123, Faizabad (Up). Cinema Road, Faizabad- New-224001. Pan:Bdsps4165C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri. Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 24 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10 10 2024 O R D E R

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee submitted a response to the show cause, citing various judicial decisions in support of its claims. The assessee requested a personal hearing through video conferencing, which the department scheduled but the assessee failed to attend. The department, after considering the reply and absence of the assessee during

ATUL KISHORE TRIVEDI,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.13/Lkw/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Atul Kishore Trivedi V. Income Tax Officer -4(1) Sultanpur Road, Katra Bakkas, Income Tax Appellate Arjunganj, Lucknow-226002. Tribunal Building, Lucknow-226002. Pan:Aodpt5131L अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rohit Bhalla, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18 11 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 11 12 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

section 144B of the ITA dtd 31.03.2022 has been set aside for fresh Page 2 of 4 reassessment vide appeal order u/s 250 of the ITA, 1961 dated 05.11.2024. Thus, the penalty-imposed u/s 271

SHKIRA KHATOON W/O LATE RAFEEQ AHMAD ANSARI,SITAPUR vs. DCIT, SITAPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.4 In other assessment years too, i.e., assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, similar addition has been made by the AO, treating the receipts from shipping bill for export as unexplained credit and added to the income of the assessee under section

SHAKIRA KHATOON (WIFE&LH)LATE RAFEEQ AHMAD ANSARI,SITAPUR vs. DY.CIT, SITAPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.4 In other assessment years too, i.e., assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, similar addition has been made by the AO, treating the receipts from shipping bill for export as unexplained credit and added to the income of the assessee under section

SHAKIRA KHATOON( WIFE&L/H)LATE RAFEEQ AHMAD ANSARI,SITAPUR vs. DCIT, SITAPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.4 In other assessment years too, i.e., assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, similar addition has been made by the AO, treating the receipts from shipping bill for export as unexplained credit and added to the income of the assessee under section

VIPIN DWIVEDI ,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, , NFAC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Vipin Dwivedi V. The Assessing Officer C-272, Nirala Nagar Nfac Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aiapd4894M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

144B of the Act, computing the income of the assessee as under: Income as per ITR dt. 02.06.2016 : Rs.38,20,100/- Income as per revised ITR dt. 21.10.2016 : Rs.49,32,490/- Income as per ITR dt. 01.11.2022 : Rs.49,32,490/- Addition u/s. 69 of the Act : Rs.3,12,23,018/- Addition u/s. 68 of the Act : Rs.22,00,000/- Total

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. SUDHANSHU TRIVEDI, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit V. Sudhanshu Trivedi Lucknow 21/1013, Sector 21 Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ackpt4164G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, D.R. Respondent By: S/Shri Rajat Jain & Akshat Jain, Cas O R D E R

u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act : Rs.21,53,270/- Variation in respect of addition : Rs.1,36,00,000/- Total income : Rs.1,57,53,270/- ITA No.418/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 14 2.1 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved

GAGAN PREET KAUR VIRDI,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-6(2), LUCKNOW-NEW

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty proceedings illegally and unjustifiably initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 12. BECAUSE on the facts and circumstances the assessee is not liable for interest u/s 234B of the Act and consequently the ld. "CIT(A)" ought to have directed the ld. AO to delete the interest charged under this section. 13. BECAUSE the order appealed against

ABSAR AHMAD,SITAPUR vs. ITO, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2015-16 Absar Ahmad V. The Income Tax Officer S/O Ameer Ahmad Sitapur H.No.131, Godhana Anshik Sidhauli, Sitapur Tan/Pan:Akapa4017F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 11 2024 O R D E R

144B of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.58,87,050/-. 3. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 274, 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before 4. the NFAC, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of non-compliance

DARYABAD CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LIMITED,BARABANKI vs. THE ADDL./JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NFAC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2014-15 Daryabad Co-Operative Cane V. The Addl/Joint/Dy. Acit Development Union Limited Nfac Daryabad, Ram Sanehi Ghat Delhi Barabanki Tan/Pan:Aaaad4943N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 04 2025 O R D E R

144B of the Act, observing that the income derived by way of interest on fixed deposits and saving account with Banks fell under the head ‘income from other sources’ and it thus, it could not fall within the expression profit and gains of business and, therefore, was not admissible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, whereas

ARSHAD MAHMOOD KHAN,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2014-15 Arshad Mahmood Khan V. Ito-2(1) Flat No.500, Windsor Court-Iii Lucknow 93H, Dalibagh Ganna Sansthan Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ajpk0388G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Arshad Mahmood Khan (Assessee) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 11 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.08.2024, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Had Received Information That The Assessee Had Made High Value Transaction During The Year Under Consideration & That There Were Credit Entries Of Rs.31,14,885/- In The Assessee’S Bank Account No.26231930000676 & Of Rs.15,49,850/- In Bank Account

144B of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.46,64,735/-. 3. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee

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

SRI SAINATH ASSOCIATES,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT-6, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

271 (P&H)] - Where an advertisement was given in a souvenir which merely mentioned ‘with best compliments from’ without advertising the products, such expenditure was allowed as admissible deduction CIT Vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd., (No.2) [(2002) 254 ITR 503 (Cal)] ~ Wherg advertisement expenses were capitalized in accounts as the benefit of such outlay Spills over to future years