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

u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27/12/2011 which is placed at pages 10 to 17 of the paper book. It is also an admitted fact that the assessment year involved is 2009-10 and therefore, as per the first proviso to section 147 the reassessment

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-IV, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. WAVE ENTERPRISES, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Department as well as the Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit V. M/S Wave Enterprises Circle-1 A-104, Indira Nagar Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaafw8536D (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.04/Lkw/2020 (In Ita No.629/Lkw/2019) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Wave Enterprises V. Acit A-104, Indira Nagar Circle-1 Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaafw8536D (Cross-Objector) (Respondent) Department By: Smt. Sheela Chopra, Cit (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 16 06 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 06 2021 O R D E R

u/s. 143(2) of the Act. The Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of ACIT v. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd., [32 taxmann.com 162] held as under: - Apart from that, it is an admitted position that no notice under Section 143(2) had been issued while making assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147. The Apex Court

SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR SHAH,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(5), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoorassessment Year 2013-14 Devendra Kumar Shah, Ito -3(5), Vs. Kanpur - 208001 701 Urvashi Apartment, 7/292, Tilak Nagar, Kapur - 208002 Pan – Abmps 9132J (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 143(2) by DCIT, Kanpur-2 beyond the statutory period of time is without jurisdiction and therefore, any order passed in consequence of such notice is also liable to be quashed. Therefore, we are in agreement with the argument of Ld. AR. Accordingly, additional grounds of appeal 5 to 8 are allowed. Since we have decided the legal issues

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

u/s 143(3) nor it is normal reassessment proceeding covered by provision of section 147 to 151 where time for issuance

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

u/s 143(3) nor it is normal reassessment proceeding covered by provision of section 147 to 151 where time for issuance

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

u/s 143(3) nor it is normal reassessment proceeding covered by provision of section 147 to 151 where time for issuance

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

143(2) was issued on 14/03/2022.\n\n1. Order under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre against which the appellant is under appeal.\n\nISSUES:\nRegarding addition of Rs.1,31,63,190/-\n\nGround No. 1,2,5,6 & 7 of appeal

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

reassessment was that AO reached on a belief that there was escapement of income on going through the return of income filed by assessee after he accepted return u/s. 143(1) of the Act without scrutiny, and nothing more. On these facts, it was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that it was nothing but review of earlier

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. [Para

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

section 143(3) wherein the claim of exemption u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act was disallowed for Rs.9,29,60,114/-. Learned CIT(A) in the present case has given his findings by holding the order of reassessment u/s 147

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

section 143(3) wherein the claim of exemption u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act was disallowed for Rs.9,29,60,114/-. Learned CIT(A) in the present case has given his findings by holding the order of reassessment u/s 147

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

section 143(3) wherein the claim of exemption u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act was disallowed for Rs.9,29,60,114/-. Learned CIT(A) in the present case has given his findings by holding the order of reassessment u/s 147

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

section 143(3) wherein the claim of exemption u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act was disallowed for Rs.9,29,60,114/-. Learned CIT(A) in the present case has given his findings by holding the order of reassessment u/s 147

SHIMLA PROPERTIES,LUCKNOW vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 Shimla Properties V. The Pcit 30C, Datiya House Lucknow Khursheed Bagh Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ablfs9732M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16 08 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 09 2022 O R D E R

u/s 147/143(3) of the Act, and accordingly the proceedings invoked under section 263 of the Act by the Ld. PCIT vide notice dated 18.1.2022 is barred by limitation and the order dated 17.3.2022 passed in consequence of the said notice is void-ab-initio.” 3. These Additional Grounds raise a legal issue going to the root of the matter

HARE KIRSHNA FOOD PRODUCTS,MORADABAD vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2011-12

reassessment order dated 14.12.2018 passed by AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 , and issued directions to I.T.A. No.73/Lkw/2022

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

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

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 Officer to the assessee. Since the assessment was getting time barred, the Assessing Officer

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, and a notice under section 148 was issued. The reassessment led to an addition of Rs.2,14,22,053/- under section 56(2)(vii) and Rs.49,11,947/- under section SOC, treated as escaped income. The reassessment, being a result of what the AO considers concealed particulars of income, led to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section