INCOME TAX OFFICER -(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S APS ACADEMY, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

28 08 2019 Date of pronouncement: 20 09 2019 O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against the separate orders of the learned CIT(A)-4, Lucknow both dated 28/06/2017 pertaining to assessment years 2006-07 & 2008-09. ITA No.471/LKW/2017: 2. At the outset, the ld. counsel

SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-6(5), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

28 /11/2022 Date of pronouncement 29/11/2022 O R D E R PER BENCH: This appeal by assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Lucknow in A.No. CIT(A)-2/LKO/2017-18 dated 17-07-2020. The assessment was framed by Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Lucknow for the Assessment Year

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)

28 to 33 where the copies of income tax returns for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 was placed. It was submitted that as per these income tax returns assessee had been filing returns with ITO, Ward-3(1). Our attention was also invited to copy of application as moved before Income Tax PAN Services Unit, Belapur dated 17.11.2012 placed

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

28 3.1 The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, assessing the total income at Rs.26,57,780/-. 3.2 The AO also initiated 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

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

28 3.1 The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, assessing the total income at Rs.26,57,780/-. 3.2 The AO also initiated 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

(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

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

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

M/S U.P. STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraacit, Range-1 V. M/S. Up State Bridge Corporation Ltd Ashok Marg, Lucknow. 16, Madan Mohan Malviya Marg, Lucknow Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri B. P Yadav, Cost Acct Respondent By: Smt Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

28,266/- which included addition pertaining to EVR. In the meantime, the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act. After due notice, the A.O. imposed the penalty of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same was cancelled not only by the CIT(A), but also by the Tribunal vide

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

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