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

iii) International Tractors Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT ITA No. 6098/Del/2016 Order dt. 21.02.2020 ITAT, Delhi. iv) DCIT vs. Metro Tyres Pvt. Ltd.ITA No. 2874/Del/2016 Order dt. 24.06.2020 ITAT, Delhi. v) Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT – ITA No. 5089/Del/2017 Order dt. 31.05.2021 - ITAT Delhi. I.T.A. Nos.265 to 270/Lkw/2019 Assessment Years:2002-03 to 2007-08 4 vi) Singh Consultancy

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

iii) International Tractors Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT ITA No. 6098/Del/2016 Order dt. 21.02.2020 ITAT, Delhi. iv) DCIT vs. Metro Tyres Pvt. Ltd.ITA No. 2874/Del/2016 Order dt. 24.06.2020 ITAT, Delhi. v) Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT – ITA No. 5089/Del/2017 Order dt. 31.05.2021 - ITAT Delhi. I.T.A. Nos.265 to 270/Lkw/2019 Assessment Years:2002-03 to 2007-08 4 vi) Singh Consultancy

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

iii) International Tractors Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT ITA No. 6098/Del/2016 Order dt. 21.02.2020 ITAT, Delhi. iv) DCIT vs. Metro Tyres Pvt. Ltd.ITA No. 2874/Del/2016 Order dt. 24.06.2020 ITAT, Delhi. v) Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT – ITA No. 5089/Del/2017 Order dt. 31.05.2021 - ITAT Delhi. I.T.A. Nos.265 to 270/Lkw/2019 Assessment Years:2002-03 to 2007-08 4 vi) Singh Consultancy

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

iii) International Tractors Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT ITA No. 6098/Del/2016 Order dt. 21.02.2020 ITAT, Delhi. iv) DCIT vs. Metro Tyres Pvt. Ltd.ITA No. 2874/Del/2016 Order dt. 24.06.2020 ITAT, Delhi. v) Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT – ITA No. 5089/Del/2017 Order dt. 31.05.2021 - ITAT Delhi. I.T.A. Nos.265 to 270/Lkw/2019 Assessment Years:2002-03 to 2007-08 4 vi) Singh Consultancy

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR vs. SMT. SHEHLA AHMED , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-1 V. Smt. Shehla Ahmad Kanpur 376-C, Allied Street Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpa4122N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.09/Lkw/2018 [In Ita No.181/Lkw/2018] Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Shehla Ahmad V. Dy. Cit-1 376-C, Allied Street Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpa4122N (Cross-Objector) (Respondent) Department By: Shri R. K. Vishvakarma, D.R. Assessee By: Shri Swarn Singh, Fca Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 08 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Revenue’S Appeal & Assessee’S Cross Objection Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Kanpur, Dated 1/12/2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Kanpur Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.22,00,000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Undisclosed

iii. Disallowance u/s 40a(ia) - Rs. 9,63,357/ iv. Interest on bank account - Rs. 20,413/- ITA No.181/LKW/2018 & C.O. No.09/LKW/2018 Page 3 of 13 4. The A.O also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the amount surrendered during assessment proceedings, by issuing notice dated 31.03.2016 under section 274 r. w. s. 271(1

ACIT-2(1)(1), KANPUR, KANPUR vs. UP STATE YARN COMPANY LIMITED , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraacit-2(1)(1) Up State Yarn Company V. 15/295-A, Civil Lines, Kanpur, Limited Uttar Pradesh-208001. 1 Smith Square, 14/72, Civil Lines, Uttar Pradesh- 208001. Pan:Aaacu1674K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 11 2024 O R D E R

iii) of section 271(1)(c) provided for a discretionary jurisdiction upon the Assessing Page 5 of 7 Authority, inasmuch as the amount of penalty could not be less than the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of such concealment of particulars of income, but it may not exceed three times thereof it was pointed out that

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LIMITED MAHOLI AYYUBI CHAMBER, RANIGANJ, LAKHIMPUR KHERI-262001,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SITAPUR-NEW, SITAPUR

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

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of I. T. Act. (4) The penalty imposed is highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon by the Ld. A.Ο.” 2. The facts of the case are that the case was taken up for scrutiny through

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

6. In I.T.A. No.470/Lkw/2017, the Revenue is aggrieved with the action of the learned CIT(A) by which he has deleted the penalty of Rs.67,75,940/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. This is a recalled matter. 7. The grievance of the Department in this appeal, as laid out by the ld. D.R., is that

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

6. In I.T.A. No.470/Lkw/2017, the Revenue is aggrieved with the action of the learned CIT(A) by which he has deleted the penalty of Rs.67,75,940/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. This is a recalled matter. 7. The grievance of the Department in this appeal, as laid out by the ld. D.R., is that

TANEJA RICE & DALL MILLS,KANPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Ys. 2003-04

iii) 24.12.2006 Notice under section 148 was issued by Asstt. CIT-II, Kanpur, a different Income-tax Authority having jurisdiction in the case of the appellant, calling upon it to file "return" for the assessment year 2003-04. (iv) ---- In compliance with the said notice under section 148 dated 24.12.2006 it was stated that "return" filed by the appellant

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

iii) Addition of Rs.12,72,887/ made u/s 37 of the Act on account of disallowance of claim of interest on unsecured loans. 12. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. "CIT(A)" should have directed the AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13 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

iii) Addition of Rs.12,72,887/ made u/s 37 of the Act on account of disallowance of claim of interest on unsecured loans. 12. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. "CIT(A)" should have directed the AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13 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

iii) Addition of Rs.12,72,887/ made u/s 37 of the Act on account of disallowance of claim of interest on unsecured loans. 12. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. "CIT(A)" should have directed the AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13 BECAUSE

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

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