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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(1)(c) and 271B of the Act, separately. 3.3 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 3.4 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. Because the impugned order

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(1)(c) and 271B of the Act, separately. 3.3 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 3.4 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. Because the impugned order

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. 10. In his order for the A.Y. 2015-16, the ld. AO referred to the case of the ld. CIT(Exemption), Lucknow vs. Moradabad Development Authority in ITA No. 3/2017 in which the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court had dismissed the appeal of the department for the assessment year

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. 10. In his order for the A.Y. 2015-16, the ld. AO referred to the case of the ld. CIT(Exemption), Lucknow vs. Moradabad Development Authority in ITA No. 3/2017 in which the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court had dismissed the appeal of the department for the assessment year

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. 10. In his order for the A.Y. 2015-16, the ld. AO referred to the case of the ld. CIT(Exemption), Lucknow vs. Moradabad Development Authority in ITA No. 3/2017 in which the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court had dismissed the appeal of the department for the assessment year

DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MORADABAD

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. 10. In his order for the A.Y. 2015-16, the ld. AO referred to the case of the ld. CIT(Exemption), Lucknow vs. Moradabad Development Authority in ITA No. 3/2017 in which the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court had dismissed the appeal of the department for the assessment year

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

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

u/s 11 of the I.T. Act is in utter disregard to the judicial principles laid down by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and several decisions of Hon'ble ITAT. The declared income, having been worked out in accordance with report in Form 10B should have been accepted. 3. Because the Ld. Assessing Officer was wholly unjustified, both on facts

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 proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are also initiated separately". Hence, at this stage, before asking for any relief from the Hon'ble Bench, it is necessary for the assessees to prove what has prevented it from complying with the direction of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and Hon'ble ITAT Lucknow Bench

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 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

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)(b) of the Act dated 02-09-2022; and iv. Penalty order u/s 271F of the Act dated 19-09-2022. j. In the light of aforesaid facts, assessment order passed by Ld.AO is illegal, against the law of natural justice and without jurisdiction, because: i. Appellant never received any notice or order from the department prior

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)(b) of the Act dated 02-09-2022; and iv. Penalty order u/s 271F of the Act dated 19-09-2022. j. In the light of aforesaid facts, assessment order passed by Ld.AO is illegal, against the law of natural justice and without jurisdiction, because: i. Appellant never received any notice or order from the department prior

SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

19 SOT 213.\nITO vs. Larka Brothers 162 Тахтапп 170 (Chd.)\nACIT vs. Nigam Chawla 28 SOT 503 (Del.)\nAshwani Enterprises vs. ACIT 121 TTJ 408 (Chennai)\nCopies of these decisions are attached. It is, therefore, prayed, that since\nthe provisions of section 2(22)(e) are not applicable to the facts of the case,\nthe addition made be deleted

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

19,87,949/-. Since the appellant has shown income from business at Rs. 10,07,00,526/-, thus, the difference in profit works out at Rs. 1,12,87,423/-. Thus, the addition to the tune of Rs. 1,27,86,690/- (Rs. 1,12,87,423 + Rs. 14,99,267/-) deserved to be confirmed. Therefore, the addition

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

19,87,949/-. Since the appellant has shown income from business at Rs. 10,07,00,526/-, thus, the difference in profit works out at Rs. 1,12,87,423/-. Thus, the addition to the tune of Rs. 1,27,86,690/- (Rs. 1,12,87,423 + Rs. 14,99,267/-) deserved to be confirmed. Therefore, the addition

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

19,87,949/-. Since the appellant has shown income from business at Rs. 10,07,00,526/-, thus, the difference in profit works out at Rs. 1,12,87,423/-. Thus, the addition to the tune of Rs. 1,27,86,690/- (Rs. 1,12,87,423 + Rs. 14,99,267/-) deserved to be confirmed. Therefore, the addition

SHRI ROHIT AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(3), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rohit Agarwal V. Ito-3(3) Room No.108, 1St Floor Kanpur 49/52, General Ganj Radha Kripa, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Abapa2045C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31 01 2025 O R D E R

19,587/-. 3. The assessee’s appeal against the quantum addition was dismissed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority. 4. During the course of hearing for penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee submitted some documents regarding Sundry Creditors but as per the AO, assessee could not furnish any justifiable evidence regarding writing