DILEEP KUMAR OJHA,SITAPUR vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sudhhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 234A, 234B and 243C of the I.T. Act, 1961. ITA Nos. 453 to 463/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 9 7. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred both in law as well as on facts in initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c).” ITA. No.454/LKW/2024 1. On facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

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

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

penalty was imposed under the Central Excise Act for non payment of duty and Hon'ble court nowhere considered the issue of validity of notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sachin Arora (supra) I.T.A. Nos.265 to 270/Lkw/2019 Assessment Years:2002-03 to 2007-08 10 has considered this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

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

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

penalty was imposed under the Central Excise Act for non payment of duty and Hon'ble court nowhere considered the issue of validity of notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sachin Arora (supra) I.T.A. Nos.265 to 270/Lkw/2019 Assessment Years:2002-03 to 2007-08 10 has considered this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

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

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

penalty was imposed under the Central Excise Act for non payment of duty and Hon'ble court nowhere considered the issue of validity of notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sachin Arora (supra) I.T.A. Nos.265 to 270/Lkw/2019 Assessment Years:2002-03 to 2007-08 10 has considered this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

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

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

penalty was imposed under the Central Excise Act for non payment of duty and Hon'ble court nowhere considered the issue of validity of notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sachin Arora (supra) I.T.A. Nos.265 to 270/Lkw/2019 Assessment Years:2002-03 to 2007-08 10 has considered this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

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

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

penalty was imposed under the Central Excise Act for non payment of duty and Hon'ble court nowhere considered the issue of validity of notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sachin Arora (supra) I.T.A. Nos.265 to 270/Lkw/2019 Assessment Years:2002-03 to 2007-08 10 has considered this

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

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

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

penalty was imposed under the Central Excise Act for non payment of duty and Hon'ble court nowhere considered the issue of validity of notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sachin Arora (supra) I.T.A. Nos.265 to 270/Lkw/2019 Assessment Years:2002-03 to 2007-08 10 has considered this

M/S NARAINA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 (4), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-2014

section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax 10 ITA No.982 /Mum/2015 Act, 1961. Such deeming fiction provided u/s 2(22)(e) cannot be considered as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We further observe that the ITAT, Indore Bench in the case of Sadhna Bros vs ACIT (2011) 46 SOT 1 (Ind)(URO) held that penalty u/s 271

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

22. In the present case, the income computed as per the normal procedure was less than the income determined by legal fiction namely „book profits‟ under Section 115 JB of the Act. On the basis of normal provision, the income was assessed in the negative i.e. at a loss of Rs. 369521018. On the other hand, assessment under Section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 2(22)(e) are not applicable to the facts of the case,\nthe addition made be deleted.\nGround no. 4 relates to addition of Rs.13 26 600/- u/s 41 1 of the Income\nTax Act, 1961\nThe AO while dealing with the issue has held as under:\n5. Further, from Schedule “A” of balance sheet relating to sundry creditors

ABDUL HAMEED CHIKWA,KANPUR vs. ACIT, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals in ITA

u/s 143(3) and another against penalty proceedings\nu/s 271(1)(c), are directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner\nof Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Kanpur [hereinafter referred as to “Ld.\nCIT(A)"] dated 25.10.2016, pertaining to the assessment year\n2013-14. For the sake of convenience, these two appeals are\nhereby disposed of through this consolidated order. The assessee

ABDUL HAMEED CHIKWA,KANPUR vs. ACIT, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals in ITA

u/s 143(3) and another against penalty proceedings\nu/s 271(1)(c), are directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner\nof Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Kanpur [hereinafter referred as to “Ld.\nCIT(A)"] dated 25.10.2016, pertaining to the assessment year\n2013-14. For the sake of convenience, these two appeals are\nhereby disposed of through this consolidated order. The assessee

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

Penalty proceeding are initiated separately u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for concealment of income." Since, the AO has made addition on account of unexplained money; provisions of section 69A have been correctly invoked. In view of the same, Grounds are dismissed.” (A.1) The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order

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

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

22,053/- under section 56(2)(vii) and Rs. 49,11,947/- under section 50C, treated as escaped income. The reassessment, being a result of what the AO considers concealed particulars of income, led to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee submitted a response to the show cause, citing various judicial

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are being initiated separately for this default. (Addition Rs.2,86,500/-) 5.3.1 During the course of the appeal, the appellant has submitted as under: b) Assessment Year 2005-06: The addition of Rs.2,86,500 has been made on account of property purchased on 18.02.2005, The explanation letter dated

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are being initiated separately for this default. (Addition Rs.2,86,500/-) 5.3.1 During the course of the appeal, the appellant has submitted as under: b) Assessment Year 2005-06: The addition of Rs.2,86,500 has been made on account of property purchased on 18.02.2005, The explanation letter dated

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are being initiated separately for this default. (Addition Rs.2,86,500/-) 5.3.1 During the course of the appeal, the appellant has submitted as under: b) Assessment Year 2005-06: The addition of Rs.2,86,500 has been made on account of property purchased on 18.02.2005, The explanation letter dated

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are being initiated separately for this default. (Addition Rs.2,86,500/-) 5.3.1 During the course of the appeal, the appellant has submitted as under: b) Assessment Year 2005-06: The addition of Rs.2,86,500 has been made on account of property purchased on 18.02.2005, The explanation letter dated