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

reassess the same. Section 153A of the Act reads as under: "153A. Assessment in case of search or requisition - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 139, Section 147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

1 to 5 raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are hereby dismissed. DCIT VS Podar Education and Sport Trust ITA Nos. 1815,1816,1864,1865 & 1890/Mum/2021 031. Further, it was contended before the learned Assessing Officer that all these persons Mr. Kiritkumarsuba, Mr. NavinNishar, Mr. N.K. Sodhani all are outside chartered accountants and them explaining the modus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

1 to 5 raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are hereby dismissed. DCIT VS Podar Education and Sport Trust ITA Nos. 1815,1816,1864,1865 & 1890/Mum/2021 031. Further, it was contended before the learned Assessing Officer that all these persons Mr. Kiritkumarsuba, Mr. NavinNishar, Mr. N.K. Sodhani all are outside chartered accountants and them explaining the modus

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

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

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

1. Because the reassessment proceedings initiated, notice issued u/s. 148 and the re-assessment framed, are all without jurisdiction bad in law be quashed. 2. Because the entire reopening having been done based on borrowed satisfaction, bereft of any independent investigation/enquiry by the AO, lacking satisfaction, the notice issued u/s.148 and the S.A. No.07/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 17 reassessment framed

SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

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

151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A then the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed

NISHA FAZAL,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO-4(3), KANPUR-01

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings and\nassessment order passed by the Id. ITO-4(3), Kanpur is without\njurisdiction and without application of mind.\n5.\nThat the Id. ITO-4(3), Kanpur has replied dated 22.10.2019\nin respect of application filed dated 15.10.2019 that the\napproval under section 151 of the Income Tax Act, given by\ntheld. Pr. CIT-2, Kanpur

VIMAL KUMAR BANKA,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2)(1), KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Vimal Kumar Banka V. The Ito 5/P/25, Dabauli Ward 1(2)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Afzb1801J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 24.11.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per The Assessing Officer (Ao), The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Sold An Immovable Property, Jointly Held With Mrs Kanchan Talwar, During The Year Under Consideration For A Consideration Of Rs.10,00,000/- & The Value Of The Same As Per The Stamp Valuation Authority Was Rs.23,15,000/-. The Assessing Officer (Ao), Therefore, Reopened The Case Of The Assessee Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’)

1. Because the reassessment framed under section 147/143(3)/144B is without jurisdiction, bad in law and be quashed. 2. Because there being no material to form reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, the reassessment framed under section 147 read with section 144B is bad in law, void ab initio and be quashed. 3. Because there being

ACIT, CIRCLE 3, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. ANSHUMAN SINGH, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre against which the appellant is under appeal.\n\nISSUES:\nRegarding addition of Rs.1,31,63,190/-\n\nGround No. 1,2,5,6 & 7 of appeal:\n\nGround No. 1:\nThat having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

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

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

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

1. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in not appreciating that the assessment order dated 29.03.2022 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of Act is liable to be set aside and quashed as the proceedings initiated under section 148 of the Act are invalid

DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH,KUMARGANJ FAIZABAD vs. ITO-1, FAIZABAD-NEW, FAIZABAD

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

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

reassessment was initiated without reference to 1 A/w S.A. No.1/LKW/2025 Devendra Pratap Singh A.Y. 2017-18 CBDT Instruction No. 03/2017 dated 21.02.2017, which provides guidelines for verifying cash transactions during demonetization. 3. The Ld. Assessing Officer may not have fully reconciled the cash deposits with the appellant's financial statements, including the Profit & Loss Account and Audit Report, which were

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

reassessment notice stood extended to 30.06.2021 and where the income alleged to have escaped assessment was above Rs.50 lakhs, the first proviso of section 149 of the Act (as amended by the Finance Act, 2021) was not attracted and the notice was held to have been issued within the limitation period. The Ld. Sr. D.R. submitted that this judgement

KASHI NATH SETH SARRAF PRIVATE LIMITED,HARDOI vs. DCIT, SITAPUR, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for\nstatistical purposes

sections": [ "147", "143(3)", "68", "148", "139", "142(1)", "151" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated after four years under