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

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 under section 153A of the Act was issued on 6th September, 2016, which was duly served. Upon receipt of notice

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

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act was that the exemption under section 10(33) of the Act, and which was amended retrospectively by the Finance Act, 2001 with effect from April 1, 2000, would not apply to any income arising from the transfer of units of a mutual fund. Since the assessee had earned dividend income from transfer

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

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act was that the exemption under section 10(33) of the Act, and which was amended retrospectively by the Finance Act, 2001 with effect from April 1, 2000, would not apply to any income arising from the transfer of units of a mutual fund. Since the assessee had earned dividend income from transfer

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

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:

35) ITR 388 (SC), it was held, that, if notice issued is invalid or not properly served, any proceeding taken by A.O. to back assess, would be illegal and void. 37. A Constitution Bench, in Sardar Baldev Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (1960) 40 ITR 605 (SC), a pari materia provision, i.e., Section 34 under old Indian Income

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1), Lucknow who had no jurisdiction over Assessee.\nIt shows that Section 148 of Act, 1961 was invoked as if it is a substitute of\nSection 142 of Act, 1961 which is misconceived and incorrect. Apparent\nreason for initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of Act,\n1961 is AIR information received from PNB showing cash deposit

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

reassessment proceedings for the captioned Assessment years was void-ab-initio, illegal and in contravention to the provisions of section 148 of the Act. Consequently, the proceedings under section 148 of the Act and the assessment orders passed are liable to be quashed. ITA Nos.153 to 157/LKW/2023 C.O. Nos.23, 24, 21,22 and 25/LKW/2023 Page

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

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid\ndirections

35,981/-\nrepresenting expenditure on account of material purchase for fencing work debited to profit\nand loss account are hereby disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee.\n3.6.7 In view of above stated facts, I am satisfied that the assessee has under reported its\nincome by misreporting. Hence penalty proceedings u/s 270A are initiated separately for\nunder

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

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

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

35 may also be considered as part of ground of appeal in the present appeal. 17. That the appellant craves leave to withdraw, introduce or modify any ground of appeal as and when need for doing so arises.” 2. In this case, assessment order dated 26.09.2014 was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) under section 143(3)/142

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

1. Identity, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of these compares in aspect of said unsecured loans. 2. Nature of business and modus operendi of the companies from whom assesses had received unsecured loans. DDIT (Inv). Unit-2, Kolkata submitted its report vide letter dated 17.04.2018 stating threin that summons u/s 131 were issued to the above mentioned company

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

1. Identity, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of these compares in aspect of said unsecured loans. 2. Nature of business and modus operendi of the companies from whom assesses had received unsecured loans. DDIT (Inv). Unit-2, Kolkata submitted its report vide letter dated 17.04.2018 stating threin that summons u/s 131 were issued to the above mentioned company

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

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

35,000/- is liable to be deleted. \n\n8 \nI.T.A. No.349/Lkw/2025, A.Y. 2016-17 (Assessee’s Appeal) \n\n1. Because the Ld CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the ground of \nappeal challenging the proceedings u/s 148 initiated by the AO in \nviolation of applicable law and without finding any \nincriminating material during search