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

1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or 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

VINAI SHUKLA,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW NEW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.624/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vinai Shukla V. Acit-1, Lucknow New 2/280, Vikas Khand Gomti Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Asnps3558C अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Ms Shweta Mittal, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Prajesh Srivastava, Sr. Dr सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21 08 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 12 09 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

3), where a reference under sub-section (1) of section 92CA is made during the course of the proceeding for the assessment or reassessment

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

reassessment. Section 292 BB of the Act cannot obviate the requirement of complying with a jurisdictional I.T.A. No.415/LKW/2023 Assessment Year:2014-15 18 condition. For the Assessing Officer to make an order of assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act, it is necessary to issue a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and in the absence

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. The Reassessment notice under section 148 was issued on 30.03.2021 which is beyond 4 from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus proviso is applicable as order U/s 143(3

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. The Reassessment notice under section 148 was issued on 30.03.2021 which is beyond 4 from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus proviso is applicable as order U/s 143(3

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

section 251 of the IT Act, 1961 by\ndirecting the Assessing Officer to verify the claim made by the\nassessee u/s 80IA which amounts to setting aside the issue\nwhich is not permissible as per provisions of the aforesaid\nsection.\n2.\nThe Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the\ndisallowance of Rs.2

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

In the result, appeals vide I

section 14A r.w.r 8D do not draw any relation to such expenditures in relation to exempt.\n\n2.\nThe Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts as the assessee invested a substantial amount of Rs.187 Cr. in group companies/sister concerns which entail disallowances to be computed as per the provision of 14A of the I.T. Act read

POONAM SEN,LUCKNOW vs. ITO, RANGE 1(3), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2008-09 Poonam Sen, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-1/73, Viram Khand, Gomti Range-1(3), Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226010 Pan: Bacps7483J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Deepak Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.07.2025 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)- Lucknow Dated 4.08.2020, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ito-1(3), Lucknow, Passed Under Section 147/144 Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Cit(A), Has Erred In Law, In Confirming Order U/S 147/144 Of The 1.T. Act, 1961 In The Present Case As The Notice Issued U/S 148 By The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bareilly (Here-In After Referred To As The Ito, Bareilly) Was Issued Without Any Jurisdiction & Thus As The Notice So Issued U/S 148 Itself Is Issued Without Jurisdiction The Culmination Of The Same In The Present Order Is Void-Ab- Initio & Bad-In-Law & Thus The Order May Kindly Be Annulled. Ii. On The Fact & In The Peculiar Circumstances Of The Present Case The Reasons So Recorded By The Ito, Bareilly Itself Are Vitiated As The Appellant Had Made A True & Fair Disclosure & That The Investment So Made Cannot Be Disclosed In The Return So Filed & Further As Per The Reasons Recorded The Income Escaping Assessment Is Of Rs.65,73,000/- & Whereas The Addition Towards Purchase Has Been Made Of Rs.16,92,000/- Only & Thus The Addition Is Devoid Of Any Merit & Needs To Be Quashed. Without Prejudice To Grounds Nos. I & Ii Above:

3), Lucknow, the ITO, Ward-2(1), Bareilly himself transferred the case of the assessee from Bareilly to Lucknow. However, by this time, the time period for issue of notice under section 148 had lapsed and therefore, the Assessing Officer at Lucknow issued a notice under section 142(1), which was objected to by the assessee’s counsel. However

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section shall apply where the\nassessee has raised such objection before the completion of such\nassessment or reassessment.\"\nYou are requested to please provide your E-mail ID with latest\naddress and phone no so that case may be completed / proceeded\nonline.\nIn view of the above statement given by the Id. ITO-2(1)(3

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

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)

reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A : Provided that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 153A shall be construed as reference

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

1) of Section 263 of the Act only after examining "the record of any proceedings under the Act". The expression 'record' has also been defined in Clause (b) of the Explanation so as to include ail records relating to any proceedings available at the time of examination by the CIT. Thus, it is not only the assessment order