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

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

SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR SHAH,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(5), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoorassessment Year 2013-14 Devendra Kumar Shah, Ito -3(5), Vs. Kanpur - 208001 701 Urvashi Apartment, 7/292, Tilak Nagar, Kapur - 208002 Pan – Abmps 9132J (Appellant) (Respondent)

reASSessment." 41. The curability permitted under Section 292BB is with regard to service of notice upon Assessee and not with regard to competence of authority who has issued notice. 42. A similar question was considered in Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat­II Vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala 1972 (4) SCC 394 and Court said "Income Tax Officer's jurisdiction to reopen

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

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 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, it will be worthwhile to understand the factual matrix leading to the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. As stated above, the assessment for assessment year 2013-14 was completed on 22.10.2014 by passing order under section 143(3) of the Act, wherein the returned income of the assessee was accepted. Thereafter, it was only

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(4), RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Bareilly V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2472C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Amritsar V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs4654E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Kanpur(I) V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2468Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Guwahati V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2462E (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings could have been initiated by issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Act, at the time when the assessment order for Assessment Year 2012 – 13 was passed by the Assessing Officer; that it was in consonance with this, that the impugned direction was, and correctly so, issued by the ld. CIT(A); that such direction

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

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid\ndirections

46 have been submitted by the\nassessee vide submission made on 21/03/2023.\nb) The assessee also not furnished copies of bills/invoices raised on M/s Pan India\nInfraprojects Pvt Ltd till date though specifically asked vide this office notice u/s\n142(1) dated 10/02/2023. The assessee has contended that said invoices/bills raised\nhas been submitted vide Annexure -1 to reply dated

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

reassessment proceedings had allowed exemption to the assessee u/s 11 of the Act. The findings recorded in the assessment order are reproduced below: “As per records assessee UTTAR PRADESH AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD (PAN: AAAJU0103A) was denied the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by invoking provisions of section

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

reassessment proceedings had allowed exemption to the assessee u/s 11 of the Act. The findings recorded in the assessment order are reproduced below: “As per records assessee UTTAR PRADESH AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD (PAN: AAAJU0103A) was denied the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by invoking provisions of section

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

reassessment proceedings had allowed exemption to the assessee u/s 11 of the Act. The findings recorded in the assessment order are reproduced below: “As per records assessee UTTAR PRADESH AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD (PAN: AAAJU0103A) was denied the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by invoking provisions of section

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

46,000/- which is 11.4% of the value of \nproperty, were subject to the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. \n4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in \ndeleting the addition of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of investment in house \nproperty under section

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

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

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

46,60,000/- of assessee as well as other family members. Hence it is relevant to mention while assessing the agriculture income pertaining to assessee only may kindly be incorporated in total income for rate purposes. That as regard to agriculture income it is reiterated that such income was earned on sharing basis through many agriculturist (labour basis) who performed

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

46,60,000/- of assessee as well as other family members. Hence it is relevant to mention while assessing the agriculture income pertaining to assessee only may kindly be incorporated in total income for rate purposes. That as regard to agriculture income it is reiterated that such income was earned on sharing basis through many agriculturist (labour basis) who performed

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

46,60,000/- of assessee as well as other family members. Hence it is relevant to mention while assessing the agriculture income pertaining to assessee only may kindly be incorporated in total income for rate purposes. That as regard to agriculture income it is reiterated that such income was earned on sharing basis through many agriculturist (labour basis) who performed

HARI SINGH CHAUHAN,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(5), AAYAKAR BHAWAN

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Hari Singh Chouhan V. The Income Tax Officer 3(5) 1, Naramau Kanpur Kanpur Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Askpc3749A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Srhi Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R

46,56,979/- (1/3rd share of the assessee) 14656979/3 Rs.48,85,660/- Long Term Capital Gain of the assessee Rs.48,85,660/- ITA No.344/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 7 2.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal

SHRI CHETAN SHARMA,KANPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Hari Singh Chouhan V. The Income Tax Officer 3(5) 1, Naramau Kanpur Kanpur Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Askpc3749A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Srhi Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R

46,56,979/- (1/3rd share of the assessee) 14656979/3 Rs.48,85,660/- Long Term Capital Gain of the assessee Rs.48,85,660/- ITA No.344/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 7 2.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal