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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has\nbeen computed;]\n\n[(d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity)\nlocated outside India.]\n\n[Explanation 3.-For the purpose of assessment or reassessment1 under this section,\nthe Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect

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

loss or had not under paid tax in any manner. Unless a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is served on the assessee, the Assessing Officer is bound to accept the return filed by the assessee even if the assessee delays the filing of the return. If the assessee delays the filing of return, the Assessing Officer would

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

loss account for FY 2013-14 found in digital form were found and seized during the search proceedings in the case of the assessee, and assessees statement under section 132(4) of the Act was also recorded on this issue. 4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. MOHIT ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

loss account for FY 2013-14 found in digital form were found and seized during the search proceedings in the case of the assessee, and assessees statement under section 132(4) of the Act was also recorded on this issue. 4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

loss account for FY 2013-14 found in digital form were found and seized during the search proceedings in the case of the assessee, and assessees statement under section 132(4) of the Act was also recorded on this issue. 4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring

SHASHI INFRA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ITO, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Shashi Infra V. The Constructions Pvt Ltd Addl/Joint/Deputy/Asstt/Income 328B, 5Th Lane Rajendra Tax Officer, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226004. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Tan/Pan:Aaucs5802M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

loss of Rs. 11,293/- reported by the Appellant AY 2016-17. On these set of facts, in my considered opinion, the AO has validly initiated the reassessment

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

loss of revenue. Therefore, we have no hesitation in hold that the reopening of assessment for assessment year 2013-14 was without any basis and was based on mere change of opinion and was evidently at the behest of the superior authorities and thus, such initiation of reassessment proceedings do not have any foot to stand out and are hereby

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

loss is clearly based on change of opinion and, therefore, the same is not valid. The jurisdictional High Court in Noida Power Co. Ltd. V. CIT (2017) 154DTR10 (All) also favoured assessee on the issue of reopening beyond four years: Besides, the assessee also relies on the following case laws- DRS Industries Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT (2021) 322CTR

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

loss is clearly based on change of opinion and, therefore, the same is not valid. The jurisdictional High Court in Noida Power Co. Ltd. V. CIT (2017) 154DTR10 (All) also favoured assessee on the issue of reopening beyond four years: Besides, the assessee also relies on the following case laws- DRS Industries Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT (2021) 322CTR

ALLIANCE NIRMAAN LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings, since view taken by him was\none of possible views, impugned revisional order passed under section 263 was to be set\naside\nCIT Vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. [ (2010) 6 TAXMANN 15] In cases where the\nAssessing Officer adopts one of the courses permissible in law or where two views are possible\nand the Income-tax Officer

HORIZON DWELLINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriahorizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd V. Pcit, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (Up)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aacch6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

reassessment proceedings, since view taken by him was one of possible views, impugned revisional order passed under section 263 was to be set aside CIT Vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. [(2010) 6 TAXMANN 15] In cases where the Assessing Officer adopts one of the courses permissible in law or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer

ALL INDIA WOMENS CONFERENCE KANPUR,KANPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), CIVIL LINES KANPUR

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2022-23 All India Womens Conference V. The Income Tax Officer Kanpur Ward 1(1)(1) 16/4, Mahila Park, Civil Lines Civil Lines Sarsaiya Ghat, Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aacta1200E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.06.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Kolkata For Assessment Year 2022-23. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Society Registered Under The Societies Registration Act Xxi Of 1860 & Running Working Women’S Hostel At Subsidized Rate Under The Name & Style Of ‘All India Womens Conference’, Kanpur. The Assessee-Society Is Also Registered Under Section 10Ac Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee-Society E-Filed Its Return Of Income, Declaring Nil Income. The Assessee-Society During The Year Under Consideration Had Shown Gross Receipts Of Rs.10,52,829/- And

Loss Account has been given, therefore the impugned Intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax act, 1961 is deserves to be set aside and appropriate relief may be granted to the appellant. 5. That the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the arbitrarily disallowing

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

set aside. However, CIT(A) relying upon the statement of Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal confirmed the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 8th June, 2018. The assessee being aggrieved by the dismissal filed an appeal before ITAT. The order of the ITAT is a common order which has been passed in respect

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

set aside. However, CIT(A) relying upon the statement of Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal confirmed the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 8th June, 2018. The assessee being aggrieved by the dismissal filed an appeal before ITAT. The order of the ITAT is a common order which has been passed in respect

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

set aside. However, CIT(A) relying upon the statement of Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal confirmed the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 8th June, 2018. The assessee being aggrieved by the dismissal filed an appeal before ITAT. The order of the ITAT is a common order which has been passed in respect

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

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid\ndirections

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 reporting of income in consequences of misreporting.\n3.7\nVariation-VII\n3.7.1 Variation on account of Crop

KHANDELWAL SOYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,RAMPUR vs. ACIT(CENTERAL), BAREILLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the\nterms indicated hereinbefore

Loss account.\nHe contended that there is not even a single addition based on\nthe incriminating evidence recovered from the premises of the\nassessee during the course of search action. Therefore, he prayed\nthat the impugned additions may be directed to be deleted.\n\n5. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative\nfor Revenue opposed the submissions and supported

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

In the result, both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.] In case of assessments u/s 153A provision for prior approval under section 153D has been made. Approval can onO0ly