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

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

section 234B of the Act. 14. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 15. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 16. The "appellant" craves leave, to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before hearing of appeal. ITA No.272/LKW/2024: 1.1. BECAUSE

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

section 234B of the Act. 14. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 15. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 16. The "appellant" craves leave, to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before hearing of appeal. ITA No.272/LKW/2024: 1.1. BECAUSE

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

section 234B of the Act. 14. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 15. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 16. The "appellant" craves leave, to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before hearing of appeal. ITA No.272/LKW/2024: 1.1. BECAUSE

(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

(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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-V, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. PREMIER CAR SALES LIMITED, LUCKNOW

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

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

Penalty proceedings is initiated and notice u/s 271(1)(c) is being issued separately for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.” 4.1 The above findings of the Assessing Officer clearly demonstrate that Assessing Officer has made the addition on the basis of directions of Addl. CIT, Range-5, Lucknow and has not examined anything at his own. The Assessing Officer

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of survey carried out on assessee. In these two years, there is no issue of commission on sales and the only issue involved in these two years, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of same statement, which has been recorded u/s 133A of the Act. During assessment year

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of survey carried out on assessee. In these two years, there is no issue of commission on sales and the only issue involved in these two years, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of same statement, which has been recorded u/s 133A of the Act. During assessment year

M/S ALLIANCE BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Alliance Builders & Asst.Commissioner Of V. Contractors Ltd Income Tax, Central Circle-2 C/O 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Allen Ganj, Kanpur. Pan:Aaeca8217A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 11 2024 O R D E R

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of Rs. 10,000/was again imposed on 18.12.2014. Considering the above facts as well as past records, prosecution proceedings u/s 276D of I.T. Act, 1961 have also been initiated for willfully withholding copy of Audit Report with all enclosures and annexures for the year under consideration alongwith preceeding two years; books of account and other

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

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