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

56(vi) to the Valuation Officer as contemplated under Section 50C of the Act. Thus, the addition so sustained is wholly untenable in law and deserves to be deleted. An order of assessment without mandatorily referring the case to DVO is bad in law. 5. Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order

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

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

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

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

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

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 in above captioned assessment years. 6. The Revenue has raised the following ground of appeal for assessment year 2013-14: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in (i) Deleting the addition of Rs.156,56,37,000/-, holding the same as 'distributable surplus' paid by the assessee M/s Wave Distilleries and Breweries Limited to M/s United Breweries Limited

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

Section 153A of the Act i.e. of 16 August 2018 all those persons who originally gave statement were mostly retracted. Subsequently, during the course of assessment proceedings, these persons were cross-examined, who confirmed the retraction of the statement. Therefore, now these statements do not have any evidentiary value. 032. Even otherwise, in none of the statement recorded

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

Section 153A of the Act i.e. of 16 August 2018 all those persons who originally gave statement were mostly retracted. Subsequently, during the course of assessment proceedings, these persons were cross-examined, who confirmed the retraction of the statement. Therefore, now these statements do not have any evidentiary value. 032. Even otherwise, in none of the statement recorded

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.2,56,56

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’)

56(2) of the Act to determine the fair market value of the property as on the date of sale that having not been done, the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 50C and making the addition of Rs.5,62,730/- at LTCGs, the addition made be deleted. ITA No.25/LKW/2024 Page

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

sections": ["147", "148", "153A", "153D", "56(2)(vii)(b)", "145(3)", "40A(3)", "80G", "54F"], "issues": "The primary issues revolve around the validity of reassessment

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.\n\n2.\nThe Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the\ndisallowance of Rs.2,56

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 14.03.2022 it can be seen that the reassessment proceedings have been initiated in order to verify the source of cash deposits made during the demonetization period in the bank accounts of the appellant. It is a settled position of law that reassessment proceedings cannot be undertaken to verify the claims

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)

reassessment under this Act, where an estimate of the value of any investment referred to in Section 69 or Section 69B or the value of any bullion, jewelery or other valuable article referred to in Section 69A or Section 69B or fair market value of any property referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 56

LALJI YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

56,210. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS.\nAccordingly, digitally signed notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 22.09.2017 was\nissued through ITBA module as well as speed post on 23.09.2017. This case was\nreceived on transfer in AO's office. Consequent upon change in incumbent, notice\nu/s 142(1) of the Act on various dates

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

reassessment proceedings\nand, therefore, we agree with the submission of the Ld. A.R. that\nthis might just have been a technical error while filling in the\nincome tax return Form. Under such circumstances, we are of\nthe considered view that the assessee's claim for benefit of\naccumulation of income cannot be denied, especially when Form-\n10 has been filed

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

56(2)(vii)(b)in respect of property \nat Khata No. 192-2 / Gata No. 447/2, Civil Lines, Gonda in \ncontravention of the facts that agreement for transfer of the \nproperty was undertaken during the F.Y. 2009-10 and \npayment was made through banking channel in FY 2009-10. The \naddition of Rs.1,54,35,000/- is liable

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

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid\ndirections

56,72,702/- and added to the total\nincome of the assessee under the head Income from Business and profession.\n3.4.9 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 reporting of income in consequences of misreporting.\n3.5\nVariation

SANTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, NFAC

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Santosh Kumar Shukla V. The Assessment Unit 11A/141, Vrindavan Colony Nfac Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bawps5372J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalabh Singh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.03.2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was An Employee Of Planning Research & Action Division Of State Planning Institute, Since 1993. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148A(B) Of The Act, Vide Dated 16.03.2022 For The Reason That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits/Time Deposits In His Bank Account. In Response To Notice Under Section Under Section 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.04.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of

reassessment de hors sec 144B Apart from being contrary to the intent purpose and scope of section 149 and of section 148A r/w sec 148. 12. That the CIT Appeals Faceless has erred in law and on facts by invoking sec 69A ignoring the fact that the assessment was completed by addition of amount not belonging to Appellant