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

72,59,560 31/01/2022 Partly allowed Shri Sachin Verma 12-13 30/12/2019 9,98,580 31/01/2022 Dismissed -Do- 14-15 29/12/2019 39,75,100 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 15-16 30/12/2019 80,49,830 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 16-17 30/12/2019 37,52,840 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 17-18 30/12/2019 47,33,840 31/01/2022 Partly allowed

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)

72,37,610/­. 9. A.O. passed another order imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of Act, 1961 of Rs. 40,000/, i.e., Rs. 10,000/­ each, for four defaults under Section 271(1)(b) of Act, 1961. 10. Another appeal was preferred against penalty order dated 30.09.2013 which was also dismissed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)­II, Lucknow

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 in this case can be initiated after the expiry of four years only if there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return u/s 139 or failure on the part of the assessee

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 in this case can be initiated after the expiry of four years only if there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return u/s 139 or failure on the part of the assessee

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

section 143(3) read with 147 of the Act was assessed at Rs.1,87,46,50,100/-, as under: Detail Amount (Rs.) Sales not included as it has been claimed 3,57,65,45,000.00 relating to UBL brand (A) Consumption of raw materials and 1,13,84,87,000.00 packing materials not included as it has ITA Nos.153

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

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid\ndirections

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-V\n3.5.1

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

72. There is another limb of issue with regard to manner in which CIT (E) has proceeded. It is seriously argued by learned counsel for respondents-authorities that CIT (E), while considering an application for registration under Section 12AA, is not supposed to examine "whether applicant is entitled for certain exemptions under Section 11 or 12 or not" since that

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

72. There is another limb of issue with regard to manner in which CIT (E) has proceeded. It is seriously argued by learned counsel for respondents-authorities that CIT (E), while considering an application for registration under Section 12AA, is not supposed to examine "whether applicant is entitled for certain exemptions under Section 11 or 12 or not" since that

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

72. There is another limb of issue with regard to manner in which CIT (E) has proceeded. It is seriously argued by learned counsel for respondents-authorities that CIT (E), while considering an application for registration under Section 12AA, is not supposed to examine "whether applicant is entitled for certain exemptions under Section 11 or 12 or not" since that

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

reassessment proceeding covered by provision of section 147 to 151 where time for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) was left. Since the case of the assessee has already been considered as search case by Revenue in AY 2019-20 & AY 2020-21 while issuing notice u/s 148 directly without compliance of u/s 148A proceedings therefore

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

reassessment proceeding covered by provision of section 147 to 151 where time for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) was left. Since the case of the assessee has already been considered as search case by Revenue in AY 2019-20 & AY 2020-21 while issuing notice u/s 148 directly without compliance of u/s 148A proceedings therefore

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

reassessment proceeding covered by provision of section 147 to 151 where time for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) was left. Since the case of the assessee has already been considered as search case by Revenue in AY 2019-20 & AY 2020-21 while issuing notice u/s 148 directly without compliance of u/s 148A proceedings therefore

VIKAS JAIN,KANPUR vs. ACIT-CC 2(1)(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Vikas Jain, Vs. The Acit, H-2/1, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur- Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur 208001 208006 Pan: Abqpj8049R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025 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 On 17.05.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 27.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because There Being No Reason To Believe, Far From There Being Any Material To Form Reasons To Believe, The Proceedings Initiated Right From Issue Of Notice U/S. 148 & The Re-Assessment Framed Thereof Are All Without Jurisdiction Bad In Law, The Order Passed Be Quashed. 02. Because The So-Called Reasons Having Been Recorded Applying Explanation 2(A) To Section 147, Of The Act Which Not Being Applicable, The Very Reason To Believe Being Contrary To The Mandate Of The Section, The Proceedings- Initiated U/S 148, The Reassessment Framed Are All Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, Be Quashed. 03. Because The Approval Given By The Competent Authority U/S 151, Being Mechanical In Nature Without Verification Of Facts, The Notice Issued U/S 148 & The Reassessment Framed Thereafter Be Quashed.

reassessment framed thereafter be quashed. 1 Vikas Jain A.Y. 2015-16 04. Because the NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs.21,12,500/- u/s 50C of the Act which addition is contrary to facts, bad in law, be deleted. 05. Because the NFAC has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances

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)

72,868/- + Rs.46,84,19,842/-) of WIP acquired by the assessee during Assessment Year 2011-12, ITA No.24 to 39/LKW/2019 Page 10 of 46 under section 69C of the Act, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). This forms the issue in Ground No. 4. 14. The ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to issue notice under

ALOK KUMAR RUNGTA,LUCKNOW vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2014-15 Alok Kumar Rungta V. National Faceless Appeal B-40 Flat No.34 Manoram Centre Apartment Aliganj, Lucknow- Delhi. 226024. Pan:Ajqpr0755G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Prakash Agarwal, Advocate Shri Akshay Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 10 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 01 2026 O R D E R

72[, as the case may be,] by the appellant.” 5. From the above, it is evident that the Ld. CIT(A) is impowered to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. In the present case, the Ld. CIT(A) had cancelled the original assessment order dated 29.03.2022 but he further issued direction u/s 150 of the Act. For the sake

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Reassessment Proceeding. 27.06.2022, 20.07.2022, 03.08.2022, 09.01.2023, 16.02.2023 03.03.2023, 16.03.2023, 21.03.2023 & 22.03.2023 6. Copy of Replies filed before CIT(Appeal) 1. Written Submission dt. 14.06.2024 2. Written Submission dt. 16.08.2024 ITA NO. 356/LKW./2020 ITA NO. 453/LKW./2020 A.Y. 2016-17 PAPER BOOK IN APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW INDEX S.L. No. PARTICULARS 1. Copy of Return of Income 2. Copy

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