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

section 144 of the Act dated 27-03- 2022; ii. Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 21-09-2022; ITA. Nos. 249 & 251/LKW/2024 Page 7 of 13 iii. Penalty order u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 02-09-2022; and iv. Penalty order u/s 271F of the Act dated

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

section 144 of the Act dated 27-03- 2022; ii. Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 21-09-2022; ITA. Nos. 249 & 251/LKW/2024 Page 7 of 13 iii. Penalty order u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 02-09-2022; and iv. Penalty order u/s 271F of the Act dated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1,59,98,27,836/- which works out at Rs. 11,19,87,949/-. 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

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

1,59,98,27,836/- which works out at Rs. 11,19,87,949/-. 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

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

1,59,98,27,836/- which works out at Rs. 11,19,87,949/-. 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

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The main issued raised before the Ld. First Appellate Authority was with respect to the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO under section 147 of the Act. The Ld. First Appellate Authority passed

VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA,SIDDHARTH NAGAR vs. ACIT, GONDA

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Vijay Kumar Gupta V. The Acit Bewa Chauraha Gonda - New Dumariyaganj Siddharth Nagar Tan/Pan:Bmypg7642F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 05 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 05 2025 O R D E R

penalty proceedings under section 270A(1) read with section 270A(9)(e) and 271 of the Act, separately. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Later on, the case of the assessee was migrated to NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of non-compliance by the Assessee

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 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