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

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

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA." 11. That the approval granted by the JCIT as required u/s 153D has been granted mechanically by the approving authority only for the sake of formality

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

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA." 11. That the approval granted by the JCIT as required u/s 153D has been granted mechanically by the approving authority only for the sake of formality

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

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA." 11. That the approval granted by the JCIT as required u/s 153D has been granted mechanically by the approving authority only for the sake of formality

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 either because some fresh facts come to light which where not previously disclosed or some information with regard to the facts previously disclosed comes into his possession which tends to expose the untruthfulness of those facts. In such situations, it is not a case of mere change of opinion or the drawing of a different inference from

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 either because some fresh facts come to light which where not previously disclosed or some information with regard to the facts previously disclosed comes into his possession which tends to expose the untruthfulness of those facts. In such situations, it is not a case of mere change of opinion or the drawing of a different inference from

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

80/- is bad in law.\n8.\nBecause, the Id. AO has make a penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of IT\nAct,1961 after compliance done within time limit through official\nE-mail at kanpur.ito2.1.3@incometax.gov.in dated 25/11/2019\nbut she was not considered the same, then therefore is bad in\nlaw.\n9.\nBecause, the Id. AO knowingly issued notice

U.P.COOPERATIVE FEDERATIONLTD,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(3), , LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.260/Lkw/2023 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 U.P. Cooperative Federation V. Income Tax Officer-2(3) Ltd Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Pcf Building, 32, Station Road, 57, Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow-226004. Hazratganj, Lucknow- 226001. Pan:Aaaau0373P अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri D. D. Chopra, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22 09 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 19 12 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

80 P(2)(e) Page 5 of 21 and 80P(2)(d) the learned Tribunal has restored the matter to the file of the Assessing officer to verify the claim on the basis of facts and after necessary verification. The learned Assessing officer in assessment order dated 25.8.2014 has allowed the claim of deduction under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER-6(4), LUCKNOW vs. SHRI ZARRAR HUSSAIN, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Years:2011-12

80 taxmann.com 163: I.T.A. No.89/Lkw/2020 C.O.No.01/Lkw/2022 11 Assessment Year:2011-12 "The question of non-furnishing the reasons for reopening an already concluded assessment goes to the very root of the matter. After filing of the return in response to the notice issued under section 148 or on the assessee requesting that the return of income initially filed

L.H SUGAR FACTORIES LTD.,PILIBHIT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 148 related to Keyman Insurance Policies taken by the assessee. The relevant portion of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer befire issue of notice u/s 148 is as under: I.T.A. No.194/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2012-13 3 (B.1) Assessment order was passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act wherein an addition of Rs.73,00,052/- was made

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

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

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

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

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

80,00,000 +\n80,00,000) in ICICI Bank, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow between 9" November to 30°\nDecember, 2016 4 the assessee stated that Rs.2,00,000/pertains to earlier\nincome or saving. AO's query letter dated 08.12.2017 the assessee was\nspecifically asked, Substantiate his claims of Rs.2,00,000/- with documentary\nevidences, on occasion the assessee failed to justify

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KANPUR vs. M.K.U PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings. The ld. AO also pointed out that the re-assessment proceedings had not been finalized and due opportunity would be provided to the assessee in the case. He also rejected the second set of objections filed by the assessee regarding the issuance of notice beyond time, pointing out that since the amount escaped was likely to be Rs.1

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