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

147/- in Rs.\n62783806/- already made in\noriginal assessment order\nu/s 143(3) and sustained by\nCIT(A) Order dt.\n19/12/2023 and disputed\nbefore Hon'ble ITAT (ITA-\n17/LKW/2020).\nCIT(A) has provided relief and\nrestricted the disallowances to\nthe extent of Rs.59619661/-\nremaining deduction of Rs.\n3164146/- is sustained\nconsidering the earlier order of\nCIT(A) dt. 19/12/2023

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 u/s

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, 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

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

deduction of TDS can not held to be non disclosure of the full particulars. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the notice under Section 147 of the Act to the petitioner stands vitiated in non compliance or fulfilment of the second condition as laid down in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act.” Shri

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

deduction of TDS can not held to be non disclosure of the full particulars. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the notice under Section 147 of the Act to the petitioner stands vitiated in non compliance or fulfilment of the second condition as laid down in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act.” Shri

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

u/s 147 of the Act, the order\npassed by the CIT(A) be quashed.\n03. Because the assessee society being registered u/s.12A\nof the Act 1961, and the return having being filed in time\nalongwith the audit report, Form No. 10 for accumulation\nhaving being filed during the assessment proceedings, the\nAO as well as the CIT(A) have failed

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

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

147 of the Act, the order passed by the CIT(A) be quashed. 03. Because the assessee society being registered u/s. 12A of the Act 1961, and the return having being filed in time alongwith the audit report, Form No. 10 for accumulation having being filed during the assessment proceedings, the AO as well as the CIT(A) have failed

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

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

147 of the Act, the order passed by the CIT(A) be quashed. 03. Because the assessee society being registered u/s. 12A of the Act 1961, and the return having being filed in time alongwith the audit report, Form No. 10 for accumulation having being filed during the assessment proceedings, the AO as well as the CIT(A) have failed

U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-VI(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2011-12

deduction u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act was not decided by the I.T.A.T., Lucknow. In view of the above, we find that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer are valid as assessment order passed u/s 143(3) has been annulled and there exists no expression of any opinion in respect of claim of exemption u/s 10(26AAB

DY. C.I.T., RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2011-12

deduction u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act was not decided by the I.T.A.T., Lucknow. In view of the above, we find that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer are valid as assessment order passed u/s 143(3) has been annulled and there exists no expression of any opinion in respect of claim of exemption u/s 10(26AAB

DY. C.I.T., RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2011-12

deduction u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act was not decided by the I.T.A.T., Lucknow. In view of the above, we find that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer are valid as assessment order passed u/s 143(3) has been annulled and there exists no expression of any opinion in respect of claim of exemption u/s 10(26AAB

DY. C.I.T., RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2011-12

deduction u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act was not decided by the I.T.A.T., Lucknow. In view of the above, we find that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer are valid as assessment order passed u/s 143(3) has been annulled and there exists no expression of any opinion in respect of claim of exemption u/s 10(26AAB

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

deduction u/s 80C of the Act of Rs.1,50,000/- and \nthereby confirming addit ion of Rs.1,50,000/- without looking into the \nactual investment made by the appellant according to the law. The \naddition of Rs.1,50,000/- is liable to be deleted. \n\n5. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts and law while

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

deducting the tax at source. The Assessing Officer recorded reasons for reopening of the assessment under section 147 and issued notice under section 148 asking the assessee to file the return. Pursuant to the notice, the assessee filed a return which disclosed the income from the property and the business income for the assessment year 1999-2000. Separate notices were

NIRMAL SINGH,AYODHYA vs. ITO WARD-1,, FAIZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria & Sa. No. 07/Lkw/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita. No.83/Lkw/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Nirmal Singh The Income Tax Officer, V. 15/2/16, Janki Ghat, Ayodhya- Ward-1, 224123, Faizabad (Up). Cinema Road, Faizabad- New-224001. Pan:Bdsps4165C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri. Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 24 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10 10 2024 O R D E R

147 of the Act by recording reasons and satisfaction and obtaining approval of the competent Accordingly, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued and served digitally to the assessee on 30.03.2021 requesting the assessee to deliver his ITR within 30 days of receipt of the notice. The assessee has filed ITR in response to the notice u/s

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)

u/s 147 of the Act. 03. That the order of Ld. CIT(A) being erroneous in law and on facts needs to be vacated and the order of the Assessing Officer be restored. 04.That the Revenue craves leave to add or amend any one or more of the grounds of the appeal as stated above as and when need