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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

147/- in Rs. 62783806/- already made in original assessment order u/s 143(3) and sustained by CIT(A) Order dt. 19/12/2023 and disputed before Hon'ble ITAT (ITA- 17/LKW/2020). CIT(A) has provided relief and restricted the disallowances to the extent of Rs. 59619661/- remaining deduction of Rs. 3164146/- is sustained considering the earlier order of CIT(A) dt. 19/12/2023

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 u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act cannot be initiated after expiry of 4 years from end of relevant assessment year unless there is failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of WelIntertrade (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. ITO (2009) 308 ITR 22 it was held

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 u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act cannot be initiated after expiry of 4 years from end of relevant assessment year unless there is failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of WelIntertrade (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. ITO (2009) 308 ITR 22 it was held

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

business income and capital gains transaction but the same wasapproved by the ld. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax on the nextdate which evidence that the approval was granted in mechanicalmanner. Thus, in the absence of proper approval under section 153D ofthe Act, the assessment order is bad in law. 18. Further reliance is placed upon recent decision

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

business income and capital gains transaction but the same wasapproved by the ld. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax on the nextdate which evidence that the approval was granted in mechanicalmanner. Thus, in the absence of proper approval under section 153D ofthe Act, the assessment order is bad in law. 18. Further reliance is placed upon recent decision

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

business income and capital gains transaction but the same wasapproved by the ld. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax on the nextdate which evidence that the approval was granted in mechanicalmanner. Thus, in the absence of proper approval under section 153D ofthe Act, the assessment order is bad in law. 18. Further reliance is placed upon recent decision

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

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

reassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n\nk. That, there is no material (fresh/tangible) information has come to the notice of the Ld. Jurisdictional AO which even remotely suggest that the appellant has earned some income/claimed some benefit or any income of the appellant which was taxable but the same was not offered

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961, which was passed by the Id. ITO – 4(3), Kanpur, is out of\nhis / her jurisdiction, When the PAN jurisdiction was fall Ward – 1(2)\nGautam Budh Nagar from Assessment Year 2014-15.Further in the\n assessment year 2019-20 when the notice under section 148 of the\nIncome Tax Act, was issued, even

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Reassessment Proceeding. dt. 05.09.2023, 08.02.2024, 11.03.2024, 16.03.2024, 15.03.2024 6. Original Assessment Order u/s 143(3) dt. 23.04.2021 and CIT(A) order u/s 250 dt. 25.06.2024 7. Assessment Order u/s 147 dt. 28.03.2024 8. Copy of Form-35 9. Copy of Replies filed before CIT(A)-3, Lucknow dt. 07.01.2025 10. Copy of CIT(A)-3, Lucknow Order u/s

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

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid\ndirections

business of the assessee.\n3.5.5 In view of above stated facts and circumstances, the assessee was requested to\nshow caused vide show cause notice dated 13/03/2023, as to why entire land development\nexpenses of Rs.13,03,426/- debited should not be disallowed and added to the total income\nof the assessee.\n3.5.6 In response, the assessee vide its online reply

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

business of Real Estate Developers and Contractors. The Appellant filed its Income Tax Return u/s 139(1) on a Loss of Rs 11293/. The case was selected re-opened u/s 147 read with Section 144 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and compliance to the show cause notice of the learned Assessing Officer was made alongwith documents, details

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

business. The sustained addition of Rs. \n29,00,117/- is liable to be deleted. \n\n4. Because the assessment order dated 28.03.2024 passed by \nAO, after prior approval of Range Head dated 21.03.2024 is \nnot accordance with law and peculiar facts of the case and \nratio laid down by Hon'ble Courts. \n\nI.T.A. No.353/Lkw/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 (Assessee

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

business income for the assessment year 1999-2000. Separate notices were issued under section 143(2) and 142(1) by the Assessing Officer along with a questionnaire for each of the assessment year in question. The assessee sought supply of the reasons recorded for the reopening of the assessment under section 148. The reason were not furnished by the Assessing

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