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

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 decisions in support of its claims. The assessee requested

ARUN KUMAR MAURYA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

11 Department and it is only infirmities in manner of service of notice that section 292BB of the Act seeks to cur-e and it is not intended to cure complete absence of notice itself. It was held that the law on the point as regards applicability of the requirement of notice under section

SACHIN VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [PrincipalCommissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA." 11. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment order had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

M/S STANDARD FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT LTD,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [PrincipalCommissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA." 11. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment order had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

KAMAL KANT VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [PrincipalCommissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA." 11. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment order had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

11(6) of the Act took\neffect prohibiting allowance of separate deduction of depreciation\nand, therefore, we are allowing the benefit of deduction of\ndepreciation in all the three years under appeal.\n6.7 Apart from above grounds, which have been adjudicated\nby us, the assessee has also challenged initiation of\nreassessment proceedings, vide ground Nos.1 & 2 in all the three

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 11(6) of the Act took ITA No.360, 361 & 362/LKW/2020 Page 22 of 24 effect prohibiting allowance of separate deduction of depreciation and, therefore, we are allowing the benefit of deduction of depreciation in all the three years under appeal. 6.7 Apart from above grounds, which have been adjudicated by us, the assessee has also challenged initiation of reassessment

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 11(6) of the Act took ITA No.360, 361 & 362/LKW/2020 Page 22 of 24 effect prohibiting allowance of separate deduction of depreciation and, therefore, we are allowing the benefit of deduction of depreciation in all the three years under appeal. 6.7 Apart from above grounds, which have been adjudicated by us, the assessee has also challenged initiation of reassessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

11,23,13,046/- under section 68 of the Act. 4.1 On appeal by the assessee before the ld. First Appellate Authority, the ld. First Appellate Authority directed deletion of the entire addition by again placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell I.T(SS).A. Nos. 336 & 337/LKW/2025

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

11,23,13,046/- under section 68 of the Act. 4.1 On appeal by the assessee before the ld. First Appellate Authority, the ld. First Appellate Authority directed deletion of the entire addition by again placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell I.T(SS).A. Nos. 336 & 337/LKW/2025

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. MOHIT ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

11,23,13,046/- under section 68 of the Act. 4.1 On appeal by the assessee before the ld. First Appellate Authority, the ld. First Appellate Authority directed deletion of the entire addition by again placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell I.T(SS).A. Nos. 336 & 337/LKW/2025

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

reassessment order u/s 147 of the Act had been passed by the Assessing Officer without issuing the mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Act, the ld. "CIT(A)" should have held the re-assessment order as illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 6. BECAUSE in the reason to believe the Id. AO had not substantiated

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

reassessment order u/s 147 of the Act had been passed by the Assessing Officer without issuing the mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Act, the ld. "CIT(A)" should have held the re-assessment order as illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 6. BECAUSE in the reason to believe the Id. AO had not substantiated

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

reassessment order u/s 147 of the Act had been passed by the Assessing Officer without issuing the mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Act, the ld. "CIT(A)" should have held the re-assessment order as illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 6. BECAUSE in the reason to believe the Id. AO had not substantiated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BAREILLY vs. WAVE DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LIMITED, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

6. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction as the same has been issued without a valid approval as required under the provisions of Section 151 of the Act. That the sanction

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

6) of this sub-section available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment or reassessment, as the case may be. Is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall he extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly.’ 7. Further clause (iii) of Explanation to section

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,, LUCKNOW

Reassessment Proceeding.\nDt. 27.06.2022, 20.07.2022, 03.08.2022, 09.01.2023,\n16.02.2023 03.03.2023, 16.03.2023, 21.03.2023 & 22.03.2023\n6. Copy of Replies filed before CIT(Appeal)\n1. Written Submission dt. 14.06.2024\n2. Written Submission dt. 16.08.2024\nITA NO. 356/LKW./2020\nITA NO. 453/LKW./2020\nA.Y. 2016-17\nPAPER BOOK\nIN\nAPCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW\nINDEX\nS.L.\nNo.\nPARTICULARS\n1.\nCopy of Return of Income

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide I

Reassessment Proceeding.\n27.06.2022, 20.07.2022, 03.08.2022, 09.01.2023,\n16.02.2023 03.03.2023, 16.03.2023, 21.03.2023 & 22.03.2023\n6.\nCopy of Replies filed before CIT(Appeal)\n1. Written Submission dt. 14.06.2024\n2. Written Submission dt. 16.08.2024\n\nITA NO. 356/LKW./2020\nITA NO. 453/LKW./2020\nA.Y. 2016-17\nPAPER BOOK\nIN\nAPCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW\nINDEX\n\nS.L.\nNo.\nPARTICULARS\n1.\nCopy of Return of Income