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

20 completed without issue of notice u/s 143(2) though the assessee had filed the return of income in response to such notice u/s 148. The chronology of the events are as under: -on 31.05.2013 notice u/s 148 was issued and served upon assessee on 06.06.2013; -on 03.04.2014, notice u/s 142(1) was issued fixing date of hearing

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

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

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

20. The above facts of the case and the conduct of assessment proceeding alongwith with its approval and position of law and case authorities relied upon clearly establishes that there has been no application of mind by the approving authority and the same has been approved mechanically for the sake of giving approval for completion of assessment

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

20. The above facts of the case and the conduct of assessment proceeding alongwith with its approval and position of law and case authorities relied upon clearly establishes that there has been no application of mind by the approving authority and the same has been approved mechanically for the sake of giving approval for completion of assessment

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

20. The above facts of the case and the conduct of assessment proceeding alongwith with its approval and position of law and case authorities relied upon clearly establishes that there has been no application of mind by the approving authority and the same has been approved mechanically for the sake of giving approval for completion of assessment

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

u/s 151 of the Act is illegal, bad in law and not sustainable in law as there is no application of mind while granting the approval. 7. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the assessment order dated 29.03.2022 passed pursuant to the notice under Section 148 of the Act is illegal

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

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) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed. 16.1 However, considering the Cross Objection of the assessee, particularly on the issue

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

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) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed. 16.1 However, considering the Cross Objection of the assessee, particularly on the issue

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

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) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed. 16.1 However, considering the Cross Objection of the assessee, particularly on the issue

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

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) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed. 16.1 However, considering the Cross Objection of the assessee, particularly on the issue

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

20-21\nRakesh Kumar Pandey,\nS/o Shri Surya Narayan Pandey, \nVill-Devarda, Block-Belsar, \nGonda-271401 \nPAN:ATIPP6520B \n(Appellant)\nVs. A.C.I.T.,\nCentral Circle-2, \nLucknow. \n(Respondent)\nRevenue by Shri H. S. Usmani, CIT (D.R.) \nAssessee by Shri Mahendra Kumar, F.C.A. \nShri Reghunath Mishra, Advocate\nO R D E R\nPER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

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

u/s. 10 of the Act, 1961. 08. Because the CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the addition of interest amounting to Rs.3,98,441/-, added by the AO, the order of the CIT(A) is contrary to facts, bad in law and the same be deleted. 3.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that in assessment year

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

u/s. 10 of the Act, 1961. 08. Because the CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the addition of interest amounting to Rs.3,98,441/-, added by the AO, the order of the CIT(A) is contrary to facts, bad in law and the same be deleted. 3.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that in assessment year

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

10.\n8.\nThat the case was reopened and reason recorded by the Assessing\nOfficer -1(5), Kanpurdated 25.03.2019 after obtained approval from\nPr. CIT -1, Kanpur,and issued notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 dated 31.03.2019 and notice u/s 148 was served in the old\naddress of the appellantthrough affixture on 14.05.2019 i.e. expiry of\nthe prescribed

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

u/s 133(6) of the Act. It was concluded post Investigation that the Appellant could not explain the source of investment in the property amounting to Rs.5,00,00,000/-. The I & Cl wing shared this report with the AO through proper channel. The AO applied his mind on this report and formed a reasonable belief that there is escapement

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