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

2. In this regard reliance has been placed on the statement of Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal recorded on oath under section 132(4) of the Act on 3rd August, 2015 and letter dated 31st July, 2015 issued by Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal. The case was centralised as per the orders passed under section 127 of the Act and a notice

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

2. In this regard reliance has been placed on the statement of Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal recorded on oath under section 132(4) of the Act on 3rd August, 2015 and letter dated 31st July, 2015 issued by Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal. The case was centralised as per the orders passed under section 127 of the Act and a notice

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

LATA VIKRAM PUNVANI THROUGH TEHMINA PUNVANI LEAGL HEIR,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-5(3), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

2 sub section (31) of the Act and consequently, he cannot be an assessee. Since there cannot be an assessment on a deceased person therefore, I do agree with Learned counsel for the assessee that the assessment made by the Assessing Officer is illegal and void ab initio. My aforesaid view is duly supported by the decision

ISHRAT BEG,SITAPUR vs. ITO, SITAPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ishrat Beg V. The Income Tax Officer S/O Akhtar Beg Sitapur Katra Astal, Laharpur Sitapur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aoypb5773P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Saurabh Dubey, D.R. O R D E R

31,10,253/-, which was treated as business income of the assessee. The AO, after applying rate of 8% under section 44AD of the Act, calculated the business income of the assessee for the year under consideration at Rs.10,48,820/-. After subtracting net profit of Rs.3,32,040/- declared by the assessee from the business income estimated

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

2 Ors WRIT TAX No. - 139 of 2016 Jurisdictional Allahabad High Court held that: “In view of the above, the second condition as laid down in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act regarding non disclosure of full and true particulars necessary for assessment was not satisfied for issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Act after

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

2 Ors WRIT TAX No. - 139 of 2016 Jurisdictional Allahabad High Court held that: “In view of the above, the second condition as laid down in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act regarding non disclosure of full and true particulars necessary for assessment was not satisfied for issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Act after

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR., KANPUR vs. M/S. SUSHRUT INSTITUTE OF PLASTIC SURGERY PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic Central Circle 2 Surgery Private Limited Kanpur 29, Shahmeena Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.15/Lkw/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No.30/Lkw/2023] Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic V. The Acit Surgery Private Limited Central Circle 2 29, Shahmeena Road Kanpur Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Cross - Objector) (Respondent)

31,43,48,500 4.1 The Ld. A.R. submitted that the AO had made the impugned addition purely on the basis of presumption and that he had failed to bring on record any corroborative evidence to establish that the rough working made by the assessee in the diaries marked as BK-8, BK-9, BK-10 and BK-11 were

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

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

Reassessment Proceeding.\ndt. 05.09.2023, 08.02.2024, 11.03.2024, 16.03.2024,\n15.03.2024\n6. Original Assessment Order u/s 143(3) dt. 23.04.2021 and\nCIT(A) order u/s 250 dt. 25.06.2024\n7. Assessment Order u/s 147 dt. 28.03.2024\n8. Copy of Form-35\n9. Copy of Replies filed before CIT(A)-3, Lucknow dt.\n07.01.2025\n10. Copy of CIT(A)-3, Lucknow Order

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

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 153 of the Act deals with the exclusion of period given in the order for getting the accounts audited

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

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\n\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\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

HORIZON DWELLINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriahorizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd V. Pcit, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (Up)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aacch6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

2 of Section 263 for revisionary proceedings which highlights the fact that there is a difference between inadequate enquiry and lack of enquiry. The explanation deals with the proceedings u/s 263 being valid when the assessing officer has passed the assessment order without making inquiries in the matter. In the given case, the assessing officer has duly made inquiries

ALLIANCE NIRMAAN LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings, since view taken by him was\none of possible views, impugned revisional order passed under section 263 was to be set\naside\nCIT Vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. [ (2010) 6 TAXMANN 15] In cases where the\nAssessing Officer adopts one of the courses permissible in law or where two views are possible\nand the Income-tax Officer

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

31 of 61 11.12 The Ld. A.R. further contended that reassessment cannot be initiated solely on the basis of Audit Objections. He submitted that in the instant cases, the reassessment has been solely initiated on the basis of audit objections. It was submitted that possession of information contained in audit report vis-a-vis formation of belief by the Assessing

SHOBHA YADAV,CHANDPURA BACHHANA ,BILHAUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) , KNP-W

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2019-20 Shobha Yadav, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Chandpura Bachhana, Bilhaur, (Appeals), Kanpur Kanpur Nagar, U.P.-209202 Pan:Auxpy6004H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shivam Singh Yadav, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.02.2025, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A)) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal On The Ground Of Delay In Filling Of The Appeal By 33 Days, Without Appreciating The Bona Fide Reasons & Genuine Hardship Faced By The Appellant. 2. That The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Is An Illiterate Village Woman With No Access Or Understanding Of Technology & That She Neither Received The Notice Nor The Assessment Order In Physical Form, Leading To Unintentional Delay In Filing The Appeal. 3. That The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Consider That The Appellant'S Cause For Delay Was Neither Deliberate Nor Due To Negligence, But Solely Due To Lack Of Awareness & Therefore Deserved Liberal Construction In The Interest Of Substantial Justice. 4. That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Appellant Did Not Show "Sufficient Cause" For Condonation Of Delay, Despite Her Candid Declaration Of Illiteracy, Lack Of Access To Email & Absence Of Physical Service Of Notices Circumstances Beyond Her Control.

Section 147 r.w.s 144 is bad in law and liable to be quashed on the ground of lack of opportunity to the appellant, as no effective hearing or representation could be made by the appellant due to non- service of notice. 8. That the reassessment order is factually erroneous in treating the cash deposits in the appellant's bank account

BHAWANI DEVELOPERS,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW-NEW

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid\ndirections

31\nentries involving amount of Rs.8,40,037/-, as accepted by the assesse, he could not\nprovide even name of the person to whom the assessee has made the payments\ntowards land development expenses.\nb) The assessee has not brought on record any documentary evidence as to what\nservices have been provided by the persons involved. The assessee has failed